U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2009, 07:05 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,385,908 times
Reputation: 895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
H8130
שׂנא
śânê'
saw-nay'
A primitive root; to hate (personally): - enemy, foe, (be) hate (-ful, -r), odious, X utterly.

This does not say love less as does the greek word's definition...

G3404
μισέω
miseō
mis-eh'-o
From a primary word μῖσος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful)...

Christ said ...

Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate(miseō) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

And he also said that we are told to love even our enemies ...


Then is Jesus Contradicting himself?


You see, the strongs concordence often does not provide accurate definitions. It is based on the KJV translations which is based on the Latin Vulgate, which itself is not a completely accurate translation of the Greek.

the fact is Jesus was not teaching that people had to hate their families and themselves in order to be his disciples. He was saying that we have to prefer God to even our family ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2009, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,422,880 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Christ said ...

You see, the strongs concordence often does not provide accurate definitions. It is based on the KJV translations which is based on the Latin Vulgate, which itself is not a completely accurate translation of the Greek.
The Latin Vulgate was primarily a result of the labors of Jerome, your Unitarian Universalist....how do you feel about that?

Also, The King James Bible, published in 1611, which was England's authorized version of the King James Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England.

The The King James Version translation effort was based primarily on the Bishops' Bible, but the translators also used the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles, and because many of the translators were skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, they could also refer to the Masoretic text and the Septuagint during their work, both predating the 5th century AD by a long shot.

Where do you get your resources I may ask?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 08:27 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,385,908 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
The Latin Vulgate was primarily a result of the labors of Jerome, your Unitarian Universalist....how do you feel about that?

Also, The King James Bible, published in 1611, which was England's authorized version of the King James Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England.

The The King James Version translation effort was based primarily on the Bishops' Bible, but the translators also used the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles, and because many of the translators were skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, they could also refer to the Masoretic text and the Septuagint during their work, both predating the 5th century AD by a long shot.

Where do you get your resources I may ask?
Your right, the authorized version was not completely based on the Vulgate ... In fact i was in a large way wrong to have said that. The authorized version was based only in part on the vulgate, as a secondary reference along with later Latin translations.

It was actually the Wycliffe that derived mostly from the Vulgate. Excuse my error.

However, the concepts of eternal damnation found in the KJV translation do derive from the tradition started by the Latin Vulgate in the translation of certain words.

Jerome started off as a Christians universalist, but denounced it later in his life, obviously at or before the time of his translation of the Greek into Latin, as can be clearly deduced from the Latin Vulgate translation itself.

There is a very interesting book about this called "The Jerome conspiracy". Though it reads as a novel, it has many pertinent facts concerning the major shift in Christianity beginning in the 5th century under the guidance of Jerome(the one time universalist who had become a champion of eternal damnation) and Augustine his, his contemporary and fellow champion eternal of Hell. By the 7th century, the transformation had come to completion, and so did the terrible times of the dark ages come over all Europe thereafter. Christianity had become a monstrous religion of violence and death and the destruction of all philosophy, science, and all education was perpetrated throughout the western world.

Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 12-12-2009 at 09:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,422,880 times
Reputation: 420
I will have to check that one out...looks interesting...and I do like conspiracy novels ..thank you Ironmaw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 10:12 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,385,908 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
I will have to check that one out...looks interesting...and I do like conspiracy novels ..thank you Ironmaw
Your welcome ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 06:22 AM
 
Location: US
27,874 posts, read 14,965,933 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
How do you explain the word "hate" (Strongs 8130) when used of Leah compared to Rachael. The scripture says Rachael was loved more. But this IMO implies that Leah was also loved, but not as much. Jacob loved Rachael more.

Deu 21:15 `When a man hath two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and they have borne to him sons (the loved one and the hated one), and the first-born son hath been to the hated one;
Deu 21:16 then it hath been, in the day of his causing his sons to inherit that which he hath, he is not able to declare first-born the son of the loved one, in the face of the son of the hated one--the first-born.
Deu 21:17 But the first-born, son of the hated one, he doth acknowledge, to give to him a double portion of all that is found with him, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him is the right of the first-born.

It's interesting that even the first-born of the hated one, received a double portion of the inheritance! So much for hating even the first and second generations!
I'd say because those were the rules, Christ was God's first-born and everything is passed to Him, sets a precedence..but, then it seems God broke that His own rule with Jacob and Esau...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 06:32 AM
 
Location: US
27,874 posts, read 14,965,933 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Taken from a cultural standpoint, in Gen 29:31, the literal Hebrew is rendered: "and God saw that hated was Leah," for example, "God saw that Leah was hated." Yet, in this same context, the whole point is that Leah is able to bear sons to Jacob. It would be a strange hate for Jacob to continue to share a bed with a woman so hated by him, I know I wouldn't Contextually speaking, it is most likely represents one who is less favored than another (which has happened to me on several occasions when I used to drink , and it appears the same happened to Jacob at the wedding party when he slept with her )....other translations have rightlfully applied שנא

The Hebrew word שנא and the Greek word μισεω both have semantic ranges that exceed that of the English word "hate".

In Genesis 29:31, the following versions render the Greek μισεω and Hebrew שנא by English words other than "hate".

NIV: "not loved"
REB: "unloved"
NRSV: "unloved
NASB: "unloved"
And what is the opposite of Love?...The fact that Jacob had worked 7 years was it, for Rachel and ended up with Leah, her father knowing all along what he was going to do at the end of that period, i think Jacob would have felt cheated and could possibley despise Leah because of the trickery of her father and everytime he looked at Leah it reminded him of the trickery...Jacob was human and that would anger anyone being tricked like that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 06:34 AM
 
Location: US
27,874 posts, read 14,965,933 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Richard - We've got Seattle, Southern Cal and your time zone (where ever that is), ready to sync up for some fellowship smoke. If you get this message, let me know when..LOL
Fellowship smoke?...i am on the east coast at the moment but could be in the middle east or europe next week...no tellin'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 06:53 AM
 
Location: US
27,874 posts, read 14,965,933 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Christ said ...

Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate(miseō) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

And he also said that we are told to love even our enemies ...


Then is Jesus Contradicting himself?


You see, the strongs concordence often does not provide accurate definitions. It is based on the KJV translations which is based on the Latin Vulgate, which itself is not a completely accurate translation of the Greek.

the fact is Jesus was not teaching that people had to hate their families and themselves in order to be his disciples. He was saying that we have to prefer God to even our family ...
I found this:
Hi Wes,
With all the new translations coming out about every few months lots of people are confused. The NKJV seems to be the answer and is says it has remained true the Received Greek text which the KJV is translated from. Problem is that statement is not accurate.
The KJV is the most accurate translation of the Greek text we have. It can be trusted and has been for 400 years. The really NJKV does nothing to make our English translation better. It removes the "thees and thous" but most people do not know that make is less accurate. There is an article at

The NKJV Examined (http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html - broken link) which explains in some detail, the issues.

It is clear and scholarly. There is a lot hype out there to criticizing the NKJV with incorrect information. But there is a great deal of sound scholarship that truthfully looks at the problems that translation has.

It is hard to explain without an understanding of the issues involved. Let me briefly explain. The controversy is based on the fact that there are two sets of Greek manuscripts. There is the Minority or Eastern Greek text (3 to 5 manuscripts) which is the Greek text on which all modern English versions are based. The Minority text manuscripts show clearly they have been changed, and tampered with. Further these three or five text do not agree with each other and have major differences. In Marks Gospel alone they different over 650 times and that trend continues throughout the texts. Egypt was a hotbed of heresy for over three hundred years and produced many heretical sects who perverted the word of God. So it is natural that these heretical sects would change to Bible to suit their ideas.

The KJV is based on the Greek Western or Majority text (close to 6000 manuscripts) that accurately reflects the Greek text found in Asia Minor and Greece and eastern Europe (where the NT was written) and has only minor variations comprised of mostly the spelling of words.

The KJV also is a translation of the Masoretic Hebrew which was shown to be 99.8 percent accurately preserved when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. The Masoretic text dates to the Seventh to the Tenth Century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls were dated around 200 BC. A comparison of the two texts shows that God has accurately preserved His Word in the Masoretic. They are almost perfectly identical. The modern versions and the NKJV modifies the Masoretic Hebrew with the LXX (Septuagint-Greek Old Testament produced in Egypt), the Latin Vulgate, a variety of other ancient versions. There was absolutely no reason to use the other questionable texts because the Masoretic text was shown to be accurate..

Problem with the NKJV.....it translates some the other Hebrew texts with these questionable texts . The question I have asked and never received an answer is why did the NKJV people do that?

So....it is a matter of basing our English Bible on and accurately preserved Greek and Hebrew text. The modern versions and to some degree the NKJV use ancient text that are not accurate. You cannot trust the NKJV to be accurate in spite of what the publishers and the modern liberals tells you.

There is a great deal more the matter of course, but this is the jest of the issues. I do not use it...and do not recommend it to others. I have done a lot of study in the matter and even I cannot really know when reading the NKJV that it is accurate or has been changes. I can read the KJV with confidence that I have God's preserved word.

Other links:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html (broken link)

Hope this helps.

Cooper Abrams
Romans 12:1-2
Bible Truth Web Site 1996-2009 - Sermons, Articles on Current Christian Subjects, Bible Studies, Bible questions answered, Baptist History, much more

I read another article regarding this, but can't remember the full details...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 07:03 AM
 
Location: US
27,874 posts, read 14,965,933 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
The Latin Vulgate was primarily a result of the labors of Jerome, your Unitarian Universalist....how do you feel about that?

Also, The King James Bible, published in 1611, which was England's authorized version of the King James Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England.

The The King James Version translation effort was based primarily on the Bishops' Bible, but the translators also used the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles, and because many of the translators were skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, they could also refer to the Masoretic text and the Septuagint during their work, both predating the 5th century AD by a long shot.

Where do you get your resources I may ask?
From what i understand the KJV was England's answer to the Geneva Bible...I have read that the KJV's Greek portion was based off of a Greek NT that was hurriedly put together and had a lot of errors that were admitted to at the time but it ended up being sold throughout europe anyway with the errors not being fixed and itself was based off of several Greek manuscripts that were copies of earlier Greek manuscripts...and if memory serves certain additions were made to the Greek that were not in the original manuscript, and certain things that were not available or missing from the Greek texts were added from the Latin manuscripts...I believe the Greek NT was called the textus recepticus...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top