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.
There is no I am that i am in the OT according to Hebrew scholars that know their language better than any trinitarian--I will be what i will be is correct. A mistranslation of that passage to deceive. Jesus just answered the question honestly-He lived before Abraham. Your versions of Gods written word are altered in many places. The religion that came out of Romes translating is all that remained when others translated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Please. Tell us how you know that is a mis-translation, and more specifically, how do you know it is to deceive.
Also, how does your interpretation keep Christianity from being monotheistic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjw47
Look it up. The Hebrews say that statement does not translate-i am that i am. Rev 3:12--in simple trinity english-- God has a God with another God over there. Mark 16:19--When Jesus went back to heaven-sat down at the right hand of God--See God was allready in heaven. One cannot sit at their own right hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I'm not looking anything up. You made a claim. Now provide the evidence that supports what you said. Who said Jesus sat at his own right hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjw47
Isnt it hipocrosy to not move a thread about trinity when after you moved mine?
Here is the whole chain of posts.
Once again, you said there is a mistranslation that was created to deceive. You said Gods word was altered, and that some "religion that came out of Rome" translated something.
So, I'll ask again. What was mistranslated, and what makes you think it was done to deceive? Who was it supposed to deceive and why? Why aren't you simply answering what is asked?
Once again, you said there is a mistranslation that was created to deceive. You said Gods word was altered, and that some "religion that came out of Rome" translated something.
The JWs have commissioned their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation. It corrects what they claim are errors in the other commonly used English translations, mostly around topics like the Trinity (which they see as errant theology) and I'm guessing probably to punch up some of their other unusual views, such as the aversion to blood transfusions.
I have no skin in the game and don't claim that any translation can ever by objectively perfectly correct, and there are different approaches to translation (leaning toward literal constructs vs modern idiom, for example). But a TON of scholarship goes into them all, and it's fairly arrogant to claim not only to have the one true understanding of the one true god, but also the one correct translation.
Bible translation controversies exist outside of the JWs of course ... and there are many ways to stir the pot. The KJV Only folks claim that the King James Version is god's approved English translation, and part of their argument is that the KJV's source corpus is the Textus Receptus, where was more modern translations use a collection of more recent manuscripts known as Westcott & Hort, which they see as a pernicious corruption of the revered and older Textus Receptus. The obvious counterargument is that W&H has the "latest" fragments (if by "latest" you mean, 1891) and therefore is inherently more accurate than what was available in the late 1600s.
On and on it goes, but the New World Translation is not well-regarded among Bible translators and to my knowledge it is the only one tied to a particular denomination where it just happens to give more favorable treatment to that sect's very distinctive dogma -- instead of to a more general academic scholarship.
The JWs have commissioned their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation. It corrects what they claim are errors in the other commonly used English translations, mostly around topics like the Trinity (which they see as errant theology) and I'm guessing probably to punch up some of their other unusual views, such as the aversion to blood transfusions.
I have no skin in the game and don't claim that any translation can ever by objectively perfectly correct, and there are different approaches to translation (leaning toward literal constructs vs modern idiom, for example). But a TON of scholarship goes into them all, and it's fairly arrogant to claim not only to have the one true understanding of the one true god, but also the one correct translation.
Bible translation controversies exist outside of the JWs of course ... and there are many ways to stir the pot. The KJV Only folks claim that the King James Version is god's approved English translation, and part of their argument is that the KJV's source corpus is the Textus Receptus, where was more modern translations use a collection of more recent manuscripts known as Westcott & Hort, which they see as a pernicious corruption of the revered and older Textus Receptus. The obvious counterargument is that W&H has the "latest" fragments (if by "latest" you mean, 1891) and therefore is inherently more accurate than what was available in the late 1600s.
On and on it goes, but the New World Translation is not well-regarded among Bible translators and to my knowledge it is the only one tied to a particular denomination where it just happens to give more favorable treatment to that sect's very distinctive dogma -- instead of to a more general academic scholarship.
I’m a Muslimah and just in case you guys don’t know, Islam is strictly a monotheistic religion. We believe in the same God as the Jewish people. The Bible, Torah and Quran all talk about the oness of God. So why do Christians claim that prophet Jesus (pbuh) is God? God has warned us that devil will try to trick us by cleverly trying to misguide us by oness of God. Can anyone please show me which passage in the Bible says that prophet Jesus (pbuh) claims that he is God???
3"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God,"
Common misconception bit Ancestry is not LDS-owned. "Family Search" is LDS-owned.
Is "Family Search" part of Ancestry.com? Or is it something entirely different? I have also heard that ancestry.com is either LDS owned, or that the owners of it are LDS.
Once again, you said there is a mistranslation that was created to deceive. You said Gods word was altered, and that some "religion that came out of Rome" translated something.
So, I'll ask again. What was mistranslated, and what makes you think it was done to deceive? Who was it supposed to deceive and why? Why aren't you simply answering what is asked?
This whole debate...the details of insignificant minutiae...means squat.
It is not wise to get bogged down in these kind of arguments.
It's all Christianity...which is all Abrahamic Religion...which is all Theism and the concept that God Exists, which is the valid and true fact-of-the-matter.
All show Reverence for God!!
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.
