 |
|
08-25-2017, 06:11 AM
|
 |
Unvaxxed Pureblood too
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40,357
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Ha ha you are so silly.
In the commentary of Matthew by Origen, in chapter 28 where he should have commented on that passage, there is absolutely nothing, not one word about the trinity or the triune phrase.
Rufinus admitted to changing the writings of Origen to conform to the trinity view point.
|
Thank God we don't need to depend on Origen.
FZ you do understand that you are actually teaching that the New Testament is unreliable? We have a poster on this forum James LeDeay. He teaches that a lion share of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew. That Revelation was actually originally written in Hebrew. That it was Hellenized by Greek scribes and they even forgot to include the tribe of Dan.
The only thing someone can say at this point is this, how can we now trust a document which has been so altered by the copiers?
Matthew 28:19 restored?
Bro, you have way more heavy lifting to do then just one verse.
It is always disappointing to see what great lengths people go to prove Hebrew roots, or their own personal doctrine choice. Like Muslims and Mormons who come right out and say the Bible is corrupt. Therefore it needs to be restored. You are doing the same thing? So, what we have to day is just a banged up copy of a banged up Trinitarian interpretation?
__________________
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
|
08-25-2017, 06:49 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
In my opinion, there are three acceptable positions on this kind of thing.
The first position would say,
The original manuscripts were divinely inspired and were inerrant. However, in the Bible we have today we see issues regarding translation. We also see issues regarding scribal notations translated into the text that weren't in the oldest copies of the original text that we have. Even in the Gospels we see discrepancies. However, the main thrust of all stories has remained the same throughout the centuries. Also, scholars have unveiled most of the commonly known issues with the Bible.
Why would God allow the Bible to be "imperfect"?
Because if it were perfect, we'd end up worshipping it. Having a Bible like ours requires having the Spirit of the one who inspired the original writings. In addition, when confronted with issues of contradiction, such as those found in the Gospels, we can be assured that they are relatively unaltered. Because if they were purposefully altered, they would have been altered to agree. Thus we can trust that we essentially have the original testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
What bearing does this have on Matthew 28:19? Well, if there is significant evidence that Matthew 28:19 was changed, we can refute all Trinitarian dogma based upon it. The second position would say,
The Bible we have today is inerrant. Period. No errors. None. No mistranslations. But here is an example of a mistranslation in our English Bible...
Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. The Strong's on this verse states that the phrase, "digged down a wall", reveals that this is a mistranslation. In fact, the Strong's defines the word translated the words "digged" and "wall" as actually being,
iqqer: to hamstring
Transliteration: iqqer
Short Definition: hamstrung shor: a head of cattle (bullock, ox, etc.)
Original Word: שׁוֹר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shor
Phonetic Spelling: (shore)
Short Definition: ox So the phrase "digged down a wall" should read, "hamstrung oxen". We see this corrected in modern translations:
Genesis 49:6 (ESV)
6 Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. There are other such mistranslations in the King James Version. In addition, the King James Version also contains Scribal notations that are not found in the oldest manuscripts. For example...
Romans 8:1 (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The second clause of this verse isn't found in the oldest manuscripts. In fact, some believe that it is a scribal notation referencing verse 4 that was translated into the text. Which is why the oldest texts read something like this...
Romans 8:1-4 (ESV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Please notice that the scribal notation doesn't change the meaning of the text.
Sometimes supplemental commentary and notations were translated into the text. For example,
John 5:2-5 (KJV)
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. The oldest texts read something like this,
John 5:2-5 (ESV)
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.
3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Notice, in the oldest text very little information is given. Why were the lame at that location? What were they doing there? The text doesn't say. However, a scribe had put a notation on this text to explain why they were there and what they were doing. The note in the margin of the ESV bears this out:
Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part, waiting for the moving of the water; 4for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.
And in the King James Version of the Bible we see that the Scribe's notation was translated into the text itself.
Remember, all ancient manuscripts and the notations made on them were hand written. Thus it would be very easy for translator to translate any notation into a given text.
And so, that leads me to a third possible position. The third position would say,
Every "error" in translation is just as inspired as the original text. God hasn't allowed anything to go wrong with the Bible. Instead, we see the King James Version is more like an integrated translation in that these notations were occasionally translated into the text. These "errors" in translation have provoked scholarship and beckon for us to re-evaluate doctrine. Many sound modern translations have taken us back to a place wherein our Bible better reflects the wording of the original manuscripts, but this doesn't mean that Bibles like the King James Version are to be discarded. Instead, look at the King James Version of the Bible as the first "accidental" study Bible. In my opinion, any of the above three positions on issues like these is acceptable. I lean more towards position three.
Last edited by Aquila; 08-25-2017 at 06:52 AM.
|
08-25-2017, 07:06 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,419
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
In the commentary of Matthew by Origen, in chapter 28 where he should have commented on that passage, there is absolutely nothing, not one word about the trinity or the triune phrase.
|
1) Please show the section where Origen is supposedly commenting on Matthew 28 in a homiletic manner. Thanks!
And have you ever even looked at the Origen commentary?
If you are going to specialize in the topic, you should try to have the basic facts right.
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-25-2017 at 07:10 AM.
|
08-25-2017, 07:17 AM
|
|
Unvaxxed Pureblood too
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40,357
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
1) Please show the section where Origen is supposedly commenting on Matthew 28 in a homiletic manner. Thanks!
And have you ever even looked at the Origen commentary? |
Yes, FZ, I would appreciate it as well if you could show the portion of Origen's comments concerning Mathew 28:19.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
If you are going to specialize in the topic, you should try to have the basic facts right.
Steven
|
Excellent 
__________________
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
|
08-25-2017, 07:30 AM
|
|
Unvaxxed Pureblood too
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40,357
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
In my opinion, there are three acceptable positions on this kind of thing.
The first position would say,
The original manuscripts were divinely inspired and were inerrant. However, in the Bible we have today we see issues regarding translation. We also see issues regarding scribal notations translated into the text that weren't in the oldest copies of the original text that we have. Even in the Gospels we see discrepancies. However, the main thrust of all stories has remained the same throughout the centuries. Also, scholars have unveiled most of the commonly known issues with the Bible.
Why would God allow the Bible to be "imperfect"?
Because if it were perfect, we'd end up worshipping it. Having a Bible like ours requires having the Spirit of the one who inspired the original writings. In addition, when confronted with issues of contradiction, such as those found in the Gospels, we can be assured that they are relatively unaltered. Because if they were purposefully altered, they would have been altered to agree. Thus we can trust that we essentially have the original testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
What bearing does this have on Matthew 28:19? Well, if there is significant evidence that Matthew 28:19 was changed, we can refute all Trinitarian dogma based upon it. The second position would say,
The Bible we have today is inerrant. Period. No errors. None. No mistranslations. But here is an example of a mistranslation in our English Bible...
Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. The Strong's on this verse states that the phrase, "digged down a wall", reveals that this is a mistranslation. In fact, the Strong's defines the word translated the words "digged" and "wall" as actually being,
iqqer: to hamstring
Transliteration: iqqer
Short Definition: hamstrung shor: a head of cattle (bullock, ox, etc.)
Original Word: שׁוֹר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shor
Phonetic Spelling: (shore)
Short Definition: ox So the phrase "digged down a wall" should read, "hamstrung oxen". We see this corrected in modern translations:
Genesis 49:6 (ESV)
6 Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. There are other such mistranslations in the King James Version. In addition, the King James Version also contains Scribal notations that are not found in the oldest manuscripts. For example...
Romans 8:1 (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The second clause of this verse isn't found in the oldest manuscripts. In fact, some believe that it is a scribal notation referencing verse 4 that was translated into the text. Which is why the oldest texts read something like this...
Romans 8:1-4 (ESV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Please notice that the scribal notation doesn't change the meaning of the text.
Sometimes supplemental commentary and notations were translated into the text. For example,
John 5:2-5 (KJV)
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. The oldest texts read something like this,
John 5:2-5 (ESV)
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.
3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Notice, in the oldest text very little information is given. Why were the lame at that location? What were they doing there? The text doesn't say. However, a scribe had put a notation on this text to explain why they were there and what they were doing. The note in the margin of the ESV bears this out:
Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part, waiting for the moving of the water; 4for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.
And in the King James Version of the Bible we see that the Scribe's notation was translated into the text itself.
Remember, all ancient manuscripts and the notations made on them were hand written. Thus it would be very easy for translator to translate any notation into a given text.
And so, that leads me to a third possible position. The third position would say,
Every "error" in translation is just as inspired as the original text. God hasn't allowed anything to go wrong with the Bible. Instead, we see the King James Version is more like an integrated translation in that these notations were occasionally translated into the text. These "errors" in translation have provoked scholarship and beckon for us to re-evaluate doctrine. Many sound modern translations have taken us back to a place wherein our Bible better reflects the wording of the original manuscripts, but this doesn't mean that Bibles like the King James Version are to be discarded. Instead, look at the King James Version of the Bible as the first "accidental" study Bible. In my opinion, any of the above three positions on issues like these is acceptable. I lean more towards position three. |
Thank you for letting us know you aren't KJV Only.
__________________
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
|
08-25-2017, 07:47 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,419
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
But here is an example of a mistranslation in our English Bible...
Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. The Strong's on this verse states that the phrase, "digged down a wall", reveals that this is a mistranslation. |
To use Strong's to "correct" the AV is simply absurd.
It is like asking a failing 2nd grader to review and correct a doctorate.
Here are two good articles on the topic.
"Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung oxen" at Genesis 49:6?
KJVToday
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/digged-...at-genesis-496
Genesis 49:6 "digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?
Will Kinney
http://brandplucked.webs.com/gen496diggeddownwall.htm
Your attempts to "correct" Romans 8:1 and John 5:3-4 are not any better, but it is all off-topic for the thread. The refutation of your modern textual criticism (Vaticanus-primacy) position combines the actual manuscript evidence, the ECW references and internal consistency (in the Johannine section.) As well as the preservational imperative manifest in our pure Reformation Bible.
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-25-2017 at 07:57 AM.
|
08-25-2017, 08:03 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
To use Strong's to "correct" the AV is simply absurd.
It is like asking a failing 2nd grader to review and correct a doctorate.
Here are two good articles on the topic.
"Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung oxen" at Genesis 49:6?
KJVToday
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/digged-...at-genesis-496
Genesis 49:6 "digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?
Will Kinney
http://brandplucked.webs.com/gen496diggeddownwall.htm
Your attempts to "correct" Romans 8:1 and John 5:3-4 are not any better, but it is all off-topic for the thread. The refutation of your modern textual criticism (Vaticanus-primacy) position combines the actual manuscript evidence, the ECW references and internal consistency (in the Johannine section.) As well as the preservational imperative manifest in our pure Reformation Bible.
Steven |
I believe your view is one of the acceptable views. I'll read the link you provided.
|
08-25-2017, 08:13 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Thank you for letting us know you aren't KJV Only.
|
You're right. I'm not KJV only. I dabbled in it at one time, but I came to the conclusion that there is enough sound scholarship to give credit to most translations. The foundational notion of the KJV only position is that the KJV translators were in some way inspired by God in their translation, elevating it above the rest. I see them as fallible men choosing to be guided by the best scholarship they had in their day. So, I have a high regard for the KJV. It is one of the most beautiful works of the English language. It is poetic and powerful. It remains one of the best translations to date, if not the best translation. However, it isn't perfect. No translation is. And I believe that's how God wanted it because if we had something so perfect, it could become an object of veneration, which is idolatry. A "biblio-idolatry" that is as detestable as the idolatry Muslims hold for the Quran. We are a people of Spirit, not letter. The Bible points us to a living relationship with God. This is the entire purpose of the Bible, regardless of the translation used.
At least, that's my opinion.
|
08-25-2017, 08:21 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,419
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Rufinus admitted to changing the writings of Origen to conform to the trinity view point.
|
It looks like you say whatever is convenient.
Have you actually read anything about the Origen Latin writings and what Rufinus said?
How about a quote for your claim above.
Steven
|
08-25-2017, 08:24 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,419
|
|
|
Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
A "biblio-idolatry" that is as detestable as the idolatry Muslims hold for the Quran.
|
Back to borderline blasphemy. You have to be pretty well duped by the modern seminarian mishegas to think that believing that God has actually preserved his pure and perfect words in a tangible, readable Bible is idolatry.
The problem with the islamists is not that believe their book. It is that their book is one of deceptions, false beliefs, and attempting to undercut the authority of the scriptures, the old and new testament, by saying they were corrupted.
Our response should be to defend God's pure and perfect word, not acting like a mormon (burning in the bosom) claiming our revelation is simply by the Spirit. Competitive subjective "Spirit" revelations mean nothing.
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-25-2017 at 08:27 AM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
| |
|
Linear Mode
