The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Thanks, Scott, and brother Benincasa.

And I first saw this problem around 2004 when I was hosting a Messianic apologetic forum on yahoogroups. Then around 2007 on the Good News Cafe. (Actually even earlier in Israel, maybe 2002 or the 1990s, with a Unitarianish group from Ma'ale Adumim.)

And I had always been taught the wonderful harmony of the Matthew verse with the Acts verses, as a fundamental doctrinal understanding.

Here is what I wrote last year on this forum, it still applies.

AFF
Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent.
Steven Avery - May 13, 2016
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...8&postcount=76

Steven

I had contact with Clinton T. Willis and I found this man to be a good gentleman who preached the same message as I do, many years before I learned of this truth.

I feel privileged to be following in brother Willis footsteps.

I wish I could spend more time answering the issues in this thread, however I am kind of busy working on The Holy Apostolic Old Testament.

It took me about 10 years to finish The Holy Apostolic New Testament, however it should take me about 5 years to finish The Holy Apostolic Old Testament.

It takes a lot of my time to work on this project, but I must finish it so that The Holy Apostolic Bible is complete.

Sorry to disappoint those who wish I could dedicate more time to answer your questions, but if you are truly interested in knowing more about this issue, you can read my book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored", which is available in Amazon.

[Steven Avery]

That version itself is a conglomeration. There is a KJB base, but also the decrepit Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) from David Stern helps to mangle some words.

No Jesus .. Yeshua.

Then there is an old time error of not translating baptism (apparently not even in Matthew 28:19) and changing it to immersion. You can be immersed when you are swimming in a lake, but you are not being baptized. Understanding baptism by immersion is contextual usage in the NT, it is not based on a simple translation of the Greek word.

There were various errors I saw. e.g. In one spot NA25 is referred to as a manuscript, when it is a printed edition.

The main purpose of the whole version is to change Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Clinton Willis appears to be active as an ALJC evangelist in Arkansas and is on Facebook.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I had contact with Clinton T. Willis and I found this man to be a good gentleman who preached the same message as I do, many years before I learned of this truth.

I feel privileged to be following in brother Willis footsteps.

I wish I could spend more time answering the issues in this thread, however I am kind of busy working on The Holy Apostolic Old Testament.

It took me about 10 years to finish The Holy Apostolic New Testament, however it should take me about 5 years to finish The Holy Apostolic Old Testament.

It takes a lot of my time to work on this project, but I must finish it so that The Holy Apostolic Bible is complete.

Sorry to disappoint those who wish I could dedicate more time to answer your questions, but if you are truly interested in knowing more about this issue, you can read my book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored", which is available in Amazon.

FZ, how do you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Greek Matthew is a bogus forgery?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, how do you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Greek Matthew is a bogus forgery?

We do not claim that the Greek Matthew is a bogus forgery.

What we claim is that the Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew Matthew.

There is plenty of ancient and textual evidence that the original was in Hebrew, we present such evidence in our book. "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We do not claim that the Greek Matthew is a bogus forgery.

What we claim is that the Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew Matthew.

There is plenty of ancient and textual evidence that the original was in Hebrew, we present such evidence in our book. "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored".

Do you understand that you really don't believe that is just a translation. You are a translator. Which means you don't really translate word for word, you actually interpret the word or sentence the best you can to get the same meaning. Also you painstakingly try NOT to remove anything from the original document. But our whole discussion is based on a portion not just being translated through interpretation, but absolutely altered. Yet, alteration to a sacred text was strictly prohibited by the devotees of the religion. From the Hebrews themselves they understood that adding or taking away was sacrilegious. You are telling us that we don't just have a translation through interpretation. We have today an extremely altered document. Because if Matthew 28:19 is altered, then logically obvious there are more alterations, you just haven't stumbled upon them ...yet.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you understand that you really don't believe that is just a translation. You are a translator. Which means you don't really translate word for word, you actually interpret the word or sentence the best you can to get the same meaning. Also you painstakingly try NOT to remove anything from the original document. But our whole discussion is based on a portion not just being translated through interpretation, but absolutely altered. Yet, alteration to a sacred text was strictly prohibited by the devotees of the religion. From the Hebrews themselves they understood that adding or taking away was sacrilegious. You are telling us that we don't just have a translation through interpretation. We have today an extremely altered document. Because if Matthew 28:19 is altered, then logically obvious there are more alterations, you just haven't stumbled upon them ...yet.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We do not claim that the Greek Matthew is a bogus forgery.

What we claim is that the Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew Matthew.

There is plenty of ancient and textual evidence that the original was in Hebrew, we present such evidence in our book. "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored".

My dear brother, please present some of that evidence here. I am of the opinion there is no such evidence, and further, that the evidence that does exist, proves the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in koine Greek. So I'd like to see some of this evidence you claim you have that Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew Matthew Gospel account.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

My dear brother, please present some of that evidence here. I am of the opinion there is no such evidence, and further, that the evidence that does exist, proves the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in koine Greek. So I'd like to see some of this evidence you claim you have that Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew Matthew Gospel account.

You got to buy his book

[Charnock]

"Conservative Apostolics" discussing why a portion of God's Word should be disregarded, discarded, replaced, etc...


Humorous.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Charnock

"Conservative Apostolics" discussing why a portion of God's Word should be disregarded, discarded, replaced, etc...


Humorous.

Liberal apostolics misrepresenting who and what.

Typical.