Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:20:27 AM EDT
Was talking to a friend who is a very educated dude... well he reads a lot. He is not anti-Christian, but he questions a lot of the things man has done over the years to change verses for their own purposes. Which that for the most part is true. I'm a commmitted Christian, but I do realize the Church changed a lot of things for their own purposes.

Anyway, can anyone confirm these things:

#1 The original text of Genesis uses the word "Elohim" to refer to God. My friend said that Elohim is actually plural, and therefore the verse would read, "In the beginning the gods created..." He said Monotheism came much later.

#2 John 3:16 is not found in any of the earlier versions of John which were found, and was added later by Christians to make the verse fit.

#3 Just other things like that as to the Bible being very changed over the years.

Anyone else got any other info? Can anyone confirm/deny these things?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:30:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 11:33:27 AM EDT by Scottman]
#1 confirmed. The word means more than two. Therefor substantiating the Trinity from the very get go. This completely dovetails with "Let [b]Us[/b] make man in [b]Our[/b] image. Also the Shema says "Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God(s), The Lord our Gods is One" if it were translated woodenly. #2, I don't buy it. Fit in? What do you mean? #3 "Very Changed?" I don't think so. The trouble is that English is a poor theological language. The Shema that I quoted above breaks rules of English grammar, for example. Also, of course translators have agendas and preconceptions. That is why, if you really really want to get down to nuts and bolts, you need to study Greek and Hebrew, or have bible studies with people who have studied it...in depth... I'm not talking about getting a copy of Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Greek here...I'm talking real, deep knowledge. Scott
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:36:58 AM EDT
Thanks for the info... as for #2 and John 3:16, my friend said he has an NIV Bible which had a footnote that stated, "John 3:16 was not found in the earliest versions of John." Then he said he looked into it more and that it checked out, that the first copies of John do not have that verse. So I was just wondering if any truth to that.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:39:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scottman: Also the Shema says "Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God(s), The Lord our Gods is One" if it were translated woodenly.
View Quote
Another example, and yet one which I think reveals MUCH, is "Before Abraham was, I AM." I get goosebumps every time I read that...
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:48:27 AM EDT
From [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=john+3%3A16&version=NIV&language=english]From the NIV Online (w/footnoes)[/url]
John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Footnotes 3:16 Or his only begotten Son
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:50:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: Another example, and yet one which I think reveals MUCH, is "Before Abraham was, I AM."
View Quote
eggg-zackly!
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:53:36 AM EDT
Commentary from the same NIV site. No mention of John 3:16 being added.
The heart of John's message is summed up in the justly famous sixteenth verse, which declares that the Son of Man's coming down from heaven and being lifted on the cross is the activity of God himself, of his gracious love, the love that gives. As Jesus will declare clearly at the end of his teaching, summing up his revelation, "the Father himself loves you" (16:27). Thus in these verses we hear of the agent from heaven and the act whereby he reveals the reality of heaven, the heart of the Father. To believe that Jesus is the Son of Man from heaven and that his revelation of God is true gives one eternal life, that is, a share in God's own life (3:15). This message is clear enough to John's readers, including us, but within the story verses 13-15 contain a very cryptic message that, Jesus says, Nicodemus and those like him (the you in vv. 11-12 is plural) cannot receive. With verse 16 we have not only the core of the revelation but also the beginning of a commentary on the different responses to this revelation. Since Greek does not use quotation marks it is sometimes unclear, as it is here, where a quotation ends (see NIV note to v. 21). This section reads like a commentary on what precedes it, but as there is no indication of a change of speaker, it could be either Jesus or the Evangelist. Since the voice of the earthly Jesus and the voice of the risen Jesus through John are so interwoven in this book, there is no great difference between putting the quotation mark at verse 15 or verse 21. However, a similar commentary occurs in 3:31-36, and there it is likely that we have the Evangelist (see comment on 3:31). Accordingly, it may be likely that here also John is stepping back to summarize and reflect on what has just been narrated.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:55:26 AM EDT
Another example of poor translating... How about when God parted "the Red Sea" for Moses and his peoples to escape the Egyptians... The Sea of Reeds
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:56:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scottman:
Originally Posted By Zaphod: Another example, and yet one which I think reveals MUCH, is "Before Abraham was, I AM."
View Quote
eggg-zackly!
View Quote
OK, but are you saying that the verse I cited is a translation issue rather than what the Lord [b]actually[/b] said? Like I said, I read a LOT into that verse about the nature of God, so it's important for me to understand.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:11:55 PM EDT
Re: the history of the "bible" and what books were inserted, rejected throughout the years, one should undertake an extensive review of the Ecumenical Councils and the decrees issued: [url]http://www.piar.hu/councils/[/url] You will find the reading quite interesting from the "human genearted aspects of our religion" perspective.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:18:46 PM EDT
The NIV has several verses with footnotes that say these verses were not found in the earliest known manuscripts, including the last 12 verses of the Book of Mark. The following, links to an article that I believe explains this issue. [url]http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/20000201-201.html[/url] The question comes down to whether the verses were later added, or were they really deleted by the users of those earliest known manuscripts. The oldest known manuscripts that are referred to in the footnotes originate from Alexandria. The religious climate at that time was heavily influenced by the heresies of Gnosticism; and we know that from that time period, many alterations to the New Testament were made to reflect those Gnostic beliefs. There are several other articles and books concerning this that really explain much better than I could. It has been a while since I've looked into this subject. I just wanted to try to point you in a good direction.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:26:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By Scottman:
Originally Posted By Zaphod: Another example, and yet one which I think reveals MUCH, is "Before Abraham was, I AM."
View Quote
eggg-zackly!
View Quote
OK, but are you saying that the verse I cited is a translation issue rather than what the Lord [b]actually[/b] said? Like I said, I read a LOT into that verse about the nature of God, so it's important for me to understand.
View Quote
You got it right. Notice what the Jews did after He said it: [b]John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 [red]Then took they up stones to cast at him[/red]: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.[/b] This was the reaction they would have toward the blasphemy of a person claiming to be God. They clearly understood that He was claiming to be God. But it wasn't blasphemy. Because He was and is. And Glory to His Name.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:43:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 12:44:17 PM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: You got it right. Notice what the Jews did after He said it: [b]John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 [red]Then took they up stones to cast at him[/red]: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.[/b] This was the reaction they would have toward the blasphemy of a person claiming to be God. They clearly understood that He was claiming to be God.
View Quote
For those who may not remember Chuck Heston in front of the bush [;)]... [b]And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is His Name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.[/b] Exodus 3: 13-14
But it wasn't blasphemy. Because He was and is. And Glory to His Name.
View Quote
...and always WILL be! AMEN! [banana]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:46:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 12:47:33 PM EDT by Zaphod]
Also, in the Gospel of John, when the Temple guards come to arrest Jesus, they ask, "Are you Jesus of Nazareth?" He answers, "I AM he". The answer blows all of them off their feet. LITERALLY. [b]What a Name is the Lord's![/b] [banana]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:28:17 PM EDT
i looked into the john 3:16 discrepancy in two study bibles - one an NIV study bible and my trusty criswell KJV study bible. no mention of john 3:16 being added so i'm in agreement with the others on this post who have not found this to be the case (at least by our references). as far as the "sea of reeds" deal, it says red sea, and how can you drown an egyptian army in so little water? THAT my friend is a miracle [:D] and the scriptures state the hebrews were able to cross as on dry land. thats pretty well parted i'd suspect! the Bible can stand up to scrutiny - it has and will - better men than me have tried to debunk it and been changed forever. God himself can stand up to scrutiny - Matthew 7:7" - "Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened unto you". keep on diggin'.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:38:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: Also, in the Gospel of John, when the Temple guards come to arrest Jesus, they ask, "Are you Jesus of Nazareth?" He answers, "I AM he". The answer blows all of them off their feet. LITERALLY. [b]What a Name is the Lord's![/b] [banana]
View Quote
It's even better than that, my friend. You will notice that in your King James version, the word "[i]he[/i]" is in italics. This means that the word isn't actually in the Greek text, but was added to make it easier to read in English. They often did this because Greek and Hebrew leave out a lot of small words like "the" and "a", etc. So, He actually answered, "I AM". That's what knocked them off their feet.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 3:36:37 PM EDT
Speaking of gods, plural (see original post), here is an interesting factoid. Many people say that the early Hebrew people were monotheists in a world of polytheism. However, this isn't exactly correct. Early Hebrews, e.g. Abraham, were called HENOTHEISTS, because while they recognize the existence of other gods, they only worshipped One. I'm not sure if that term is in a regular dictionary; you may have to look in a religious dictionary. James
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 4:59:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By Scottman: eggg-zackly!
View Quote
OK, but are you saying that the verse I cited is a translation issue rather than what the Lord [b]actually[/b] said?
View Quote
No way! I got no issues! I'm saying "Amen Brother Zaphod! Jesus [b]IS [i]I AM[/i][/b]! Scott
Top Top