This May be Shocking to You, But Your Bible Isn't God's Inspired Word (doctrine, gnostic)
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.
In a recent bible study, my pastor made this statement. I was totally shocked because I was thinking what does he mean? I need some clarification. Aren't I reading God's word in my New King James version, NIV, NASB or etc., so how couldn't those versions be God's inspired word? Well what my pastor meant was that the original tongue that the bible was written, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are God's inspired word. The various translations, are simply translations, but not God's inspired Word. This is why we can't even trust one particular translation over another because of bias which has been clearly evident in some translations, like the New World Translation.
In a recent bible study, my pastor made this statement. I was totally shocked because I was thinking what does he mean? I need some clarification. Aren't I reading God's word in my New King James version, NIV, NASB or etc., so how couldn't those versions be God's inspired word? Well what my pastor meant was that the original tongue that the bible was written, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are God's inspired word. The various translations, are simply translations, but not God's inspired Word. This is why we can't even trust one particular translation over another because of bias which has been clearly evident in some translations, like the New World Translation.
Antredd I commend you for saying this, but give you a F for singling out only the New World Translation. If you said the King James i would have given you an A+
Antredd I commend you for saying this, but give you a F for singling out only the New World Translation. If you said the King James i would have given you an A+
I am lol only because I had a slight feeling that someone was going to give me flack for talking about the New World Translation. I am sorry, I can't add nor take away from God's original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Word to make those verses translate into my language to support my religion's interpretation of Scripture. And that's exactly what the New World Translation does in many verses in that bible. To me, that's dangerous, and out right wrong to think that we need to help God tell us what He meant when He inspired those bible authors.
In a recent bible study, my pastor made this statement. I was totally shocked because I was thinking what does he mean? I need some clarification. Aren't I reading God's word in my New King James version, NIV, NASB or etc., so how couldn't those versions be God's inspired word? Well what my pastor meant was that the original tongue that the bible was written, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are God's inspired word. The various translations, are simply translations, but not God's inspired Word. This is why we can't even trust one particular translation over another because of bias which has been clearly evident in some translations, like the New World Translation.
This is why it's advantageous to get some study guides like a Strong's concordance and a lexicon. You'd be surprised at the Greek meaning of some words. It's a much more expressive language than English.
Antredd I commend you for saying this, but give you a F for singling out only the New World Translation. If you said the King James i would have given you an A+
THe New World "Translation" denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God. I give that deceptive counterfeit an F-. You might as well read the Koran. The King James is a reliable English translation. Avoid those infected by modern textual criticism and that use the Gnostic influenced Alexandrian texts. If the English of the 1760s is difficult for you, I recommend Jay Green Sr's excellent "King James in Modern English" if you can find it. The KJ3 by the same translator is also excellent. Any that deny that God's only begotten Son came in the flesh is a false prophet.
It's not just the translation, it's the punctuation
Quote:
Originally Posted by antredd
In a recent bible study, my pastor made this statement. I was totally shocked because I was thinking what does he mean? I need some clarification. Aren't I reading God's word in my New King James version, NIV, NASB or etc., so how couldn't those versions be God's inspired word? Well what my pastor meant was that the original tongue that the bible was written, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are God's inspired word. The various translations, are simply translations, but not God's inspired Word. This is why we can't even trust one particular translation over another because of bias which has been clearly evident in some translations, like the New World Translation.
On another thread Clear Lens, who is a student of ancient manuscripts, pointed out that in many cases the confusion is not solely the translation of the words. Since the early Greek texts had no punctuation, translators had to add the punctuation. I forget now which particular verse he pointed out, but one translator put a comma in one location and a different translator put it in another and it made two different ways of reading and understanding that particular verse. And, as he pointed out, entire doctrines about the Scripture are impacted by where punctuation is placed.
The further problem exists that words don't hold the same meaning from one age to another. Even in our relatively short lives we see words that have an original meaning but hold multiple interpretations depending not only who says/writes the word, but even their age/gender. For instance the English word "cool" has a classical definition that says something about the lack of heat in the atmosphere, water, or an object, or even our own sensation. But it also has come to mean what is now being referred to as "fat." Something good, or preferable, or pleasing.
To these potential problems add a couple of thousand years. It is likely that the many translations we read are very possibly far from the intended meaning at the time of writing. It's why individual verses of scripture outside of context, can be misleading, confusing, and potentially wrong.
I believe the intent of all the biblical authors was to convey a spiritual message, and I believe the Bible, and much of the apocryphal literature give a spiritual message. But it is only meaningful in the hearts of believers. Deifying those translations is a slippery slope.
Sounds like this "Christian Pastor" is an impostor, an unbeliever. Yes, the authors of the Bible wrote in Greek and Hebrew. Yes translations are not perfect, but languages express ideas sometimes that are hard to translate into different languages. However, there are some very good translations, NIV, NKJV, NASB, English version are all examples. Some aren't so good. eg. Living Bible. But you have to remember that the idea of language is to convey information, history, thoughts and ideas, and that is done very well by these translations, thereby they convey God's Holy Word.
God said they would die upon eating the fruit. Satan, despite what God said, stated that they wouldn't die.
God said through the Scriptures that the Bible is inspired by Himself. This guy says - not so. We got people here saying the same thing.
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.
It's not just the translation, it's the punctuation
