₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
Please note that the more established and better organized Orthodox churches don't preach tithes and they don't lack in any thing.

How many of them do you really know? I know and have mentioned several better organised orthodox churches that preach tithes and they don't lack. Try to leave room for a balanced view, especially when you know very little of the real situation on ground.

KunleOshob:
This what the bible has to say about such money mongers who tell you all sorts of lies and distort the bible just to extort money from you.

It is easy to use verses to slur other people. . . way too easy. Take care of your own lies, then you can be in a better position to share truth.

@mantraa,

mantraa:
Thanks for your replies to my post and all your various suggestions. I have learnt a lot that i didnt know before and will discuss them with my friend and our pastor when i see him on sunday. I consider myself an openminded christian and am willing to learn new things and interpretations of the bible. I have decided to use my own judgement in Gods eyes and go against my pastor's demands. I have been reading in other topics about pastors owning private jets and stuff, but my pastor is not like that. I will be giving as much as i feel i can but as i am also helping my sick mother back home, i will ask the pastor if i can reduce my monthly tithe to £100 per month, which is less than 10%, and send my mother an extra £100 pm instead. I hope he is understanding enough to accept my proposal, and will advise my friend to do the same.
I will also put to him the suggestion that christians shouldnt be giving compulsory tithes at all as it is not part of Christ's teachings,

Wish me luck :-)

Lol, let me wish you much more than luck. The highlighted part is what I would take if I were in your position - it is non-negotiable and you do not need to discuss it with any pastor (MHO). No pastor can take the place of God; and what He says is all there is to be concerned with. As you purpose in your heart (2 Cor. 9:7). QED. If what you give in church is cheerfully done and amounts to just £10 from your heart, then "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. " (2 Cor. 8:12).

Blessings aplenty.

anonimi:
@ poster,

ask your friend to read her Bible up on this matter as she is supposed to on ANY matter, irrespective of what her pastor says.
Specific to this is Matt. 22v21

I enjoyed that, thanks. Just to add this from 2 Cor. 9:7 - "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

KunleOshob:
The bible and the Holy spirit in me make it crystal clear to me that compulsory tithing being preached in today's churches is not meant for christians.

Which "bible"? How can you be talking about "Bible" here when you know you have questioned is veracity? When it is convenient for you to haggle, you scream about the "bible" making something clear to you. I hear.

KunleOshob:
What a load of Bull The only people who steal as far as tithing is concerned are the pastors who preach this false doctrine (not meant for christians) with the aim of using distorted scripture to de-fraud them of at least ten percent of the their income on a regular basis. It as since been established on this thread and several others that tithing is not meant for christians so brethen beware.

The only thing you are trying to establish in several threads is your own misgiving. Talk about "distorted scripture", you have them all littered in your submissions. We know them - the false assertion of 613 mosaic laws that you repealed by Christ's death, is a case in point. Lesson? Just learn to share your points simply without these *pladdra.


_{*pladdra - Swedish word for babble or jabber.}

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
Where have you been?? Missed ya
I think you and i have heard enough dialogue on this false doctrine already so i would avoid responding to your posts. However if any brethren out there should require clarification on why tithes is not meant for christians i would be more than willing to share with them my extensive knowledge of this topic using several biblical references.

@KunleOshob,

I'm doing okay, thanks. And you?

Be encouraged to share your views, be that whatever they may be. The one thing you could do to really help anyone is share those views simply without trying to castigate anyone. Not everything you hold on this matter is Biblically sound, so what is this idea of your "extensive knowledge"? A case in point is the 613 laws you often go about asserting were repealed by Jesus' death. Even though that is not true (and there are over 213 examples I could readily point out in a few minutes), would it be nice of anyone to castigate you the way you readily castigate others for what you don't understand? Would it be nice of them to also claim they have "extensive knowledge" and use your own language on you for the false assertions you often make? It is easy to malign others, especially when what you assert is equally false; but I'm sure that if anyone was to point out your own position with the same language you use on others, you would not be happy at all.

Please learn to address issues and save the distractions. Leave others to make up their minds when you state your premise simply. You don't have to embellish your posts with such pride and false assertions. You never know how many people will see through your position and waste them the way you hope to denigrate others.

Shalom.

Dear okunoba,

okunoba:
Nigerians and god, we spend too much time 0n this issue. I think it`s about time we wake up from our day dreaming. If all these talk of religion and having a relationship with god was the solution to our problems, then Nigeria should be paradise but the sad truth is, it`s hell on earth. u guys are just lazy, looking for an answer for all ur problems through illusions. I know we are so brain washed we refuse to see that religion especially Islam and Christianity are all man made to benefit the self appointed representatives of god on earth.

Please wake up. People who talk the way you do are not contributing to the solution by complaining about the faith of other people. If you worry about people who have theistic worldviews, you should equally be worried about those who have no religion in their worldview - and you have a ready example in communist atheists (go and find out what they do to their own citizens who are religious). How has your illusion helped to solve the problem you complain about in Nigeria?

Image123:
Don't just jump or shout when you read,observe.Let your eyes observe my ways.

That was what caught my attention and which I wanted to appreciate. Be encouraged and blessed in sharing these thoughts.

@OLAADEGBU,

I can't thank you enough for sharing those highlights. Bless up.

dafidixone:
You are blessed my brother. Could you please check your meaning of words for "income" "proceed" and other word commonly used when tithe is mentioned? or are you a farmer?
Shalom.

Long time, dafidixone. How are you doing? I trust all is well. Bless you.

KunleOshob:
That aside tithing was one of the 613 mosaic laws which were repealed by the death of Christ our saviour. Is it not obvious there is a fraudulent intention on the part of preachers to smuggle tithes into christianity even when christ or the apostles never directed christians to tithe in the new testament.

Hallo again, KunleOshob.

I am often amazed at how you are at liberty to castigate others and yet are so unable to see your own mishaps. That is not the way to discuss a matter at all. For one, if others are preaching a matter and they did not dip their hands into your pocket to pay tithes, why not offer your own views without being so accusative?

Second, KunleOshob, you often carry this flawed mentality of 613 Mosaic laws as being repealed by the death of Christ. Mr Kunle, if that is so, please throw the Decalogue once and for all and stop being selective. It's either you mean what you are saying or you are not a serious fellow at all. Are loving God and loving neighbour not part of those 613 Laws you decry? Were they also repealed by Christ death as you claim for all those 613 Mosaic laws? How come you keep schlepping this same mentality that is so flawed and selective, and yet you are always at liberty to castigate others?

Hi everyone,

I should be here a few more times than in the past. No vex. I hope all's going well with everyone? All the resources posted (testimonies, prayers, reflections, exhortations, scripture texts, etc) have been such a blessing to me, and I want to say a huge thank you to everyone. May your day and week bring you much harvest of God's wonderful graces.

Hi vicero,

Could you please send me an email so I could get further details? I believe nothing is too small and would like to also drop my 1 shillings as I join in praying for the brother.

God bless you and him, and your families.

@KunleOshob,

It is interesting that while I thought this matter should have come to a close, a few things are still projected that are quite flawed in your premise. Let me show a few for the sake of others who might feel the same way as you do.

KunleOshob:
Thanx for bring up the relevant post pilgrim.1, i still stand by that post becuase it is quite obvious that most of the old testament doctrines based mainly on Mosaic laws(613 of them) are not relevant or being applied to christianity today (why have them in the bible). Or have you come across any christian church carring out sacrificial burn offerings which was very common in the old testament times. Even though there are useful lessons to be learnt in the old testament these lessons are being abused and treated as doctrine for christians even though it is not relevant to them, an example of this that readily comes to mind is the obsolete doctrine of tithes which was never directed at new testament christians and is popularly being preached today in churches.

First off, Kunle - this is not about tithes; and tithes has various threads opened for discussions. Many people feel differently about this subject, and as long as there is not a single verse condemning it in any wise, it should not keep featuring in every disaffection you express about what you feel should be or not be included in Christian doctrines.

Second, we know that Judaism is not Christianity even though many Christians mix them up today in churches where tithes are not encouraged. The thing is that many people continue to be get these issues mixed up based on so many things, some do so because of their personal disenchantments to anything having to do with any part of the OT. It is remarkable that so many of these dear folks do not even have a clue what they are arguing against, and when invited to look even more closely, one finds the sad case attested everytime that they don't even have a handle on what they state or argue against.

Thirdly and more importantly, this phrase of "why have them in the bible" is a bit skewed. That is because if all these things were left out, you would never have a well grounded basis for anything at all that you may hold as "Christian". There are far more important matters than you may suppose as to ask why they should be in the Bible. What about the prophetic significance of the many things we hold today in Scripture? How would we ever have been able to understand them if they were not provided in the OT? Their exclusion would definitely have presented more problems for Christians than you realise; and what you may be concerned about is the abuse of Scripture and not the exclusion of any part of Scripture. Like I noted earlier, which part of Scripture do you suppose would never be abused by man? Even the very name of the Lord has been abused by belieevrs and unbelievers alike - should that concern then lead to the idea that all references to His Name be not found in the Bible?

KunleOshob:
We have to be able to distinguish between Judaism and christianity which we profess and not allow preachers to take advantage of "our ignorance". I believe all the teachings we need to live good christian lives can be found in the new testament and that a lot of what we read in th old testament not only contradicts christian beliefs it causes confusion and misleads christians. It also easily allows scripture to be manipulated and difficult to understand

I don't think the OT and the NT "contradict" each other when appreciated in their contexts. If one has a very solid distinction between Judaism and Christianity, this idea immediately fades. You cannot understand the real essence of the Christian life if you only look to the NT. Just take time to think on these things, and you will find that the NT cannot be properly understood or appreciated without the OT. Think about it carefully, and you will find several examples that will readily come to mind.

Hi KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Another lie!!!!! I never at any point in this thread asked if the scriptures was still relevant to christ's followers. Please don't quote me out of context.

Calm down. Granted, and we don't want anyone to be quoted out of context. Although Image123 did not quote the part that might be indicating this, but please bear in mind that this is the way some people tend to have read what you had said previously (post #165):

[quote author= KunleOshob]How relevant is the old testment doctrine to christian living today?[/quote]There are a lot of others who have asked me that very thing, and I didn't refer to it at all, because my reply to them was that it is not in my place to interprete anything for anyone until they make themselves clear. This does not mean that you categorically asked that question; but from the above quote in yours, that is how several people had read it to mean.

Anyhow, enjoy your day - no need to be so upset.

@Bastage,

I should agree absolutely with you on this one:

Bastage:
My point is that it's exactly the opposite. It's a warning not to put all of one's faith in Scripture.
Now, taking into account that the warnee is Christ and that the result of not heeding that warning is to miss Him, can that not be interpeted as a command of sorts? He's not really giving you any option in this one - it's "Ignore me and you miss me". "Get too engrossed in the fine print and you won't see the main contract". Knowing those are the consequences, does a devotee of Christ really have a choice?

I think it should be fair that we do not hold on to just a linear understanding or perspective on this matter. Yes, sometimes I tend to miss the essence in what you had tried to convey because I didn't see it as a "command"; not until you helped me see the perspective in which you conveyed that matter. I was having my eyes as well on those whom He addressed, for they were actually not His devotees - they were actually the very people that opposed Him (for which reason it did not seem in context that He would address them as if He were ordering them to search the Scriptures).

Anyhow, my appreciation again for taking the time to share.

Cheers.

@Bastage,

Bastage:
@ pilgrim.
This has obviously descended well into the realms of semantics. But I would like to bring up a point I feel is pertinent.

I agree. It's sad that those who have been arguing to the effect of a "command" have refused to note the fact I already from the onset stated clearly that the verse was NOT a command! I wonder how many times I have to state that in simple terms before they see it as plainly.

Bastage:
A command is an order. We agree on that, yes?

Yes.

Bastage:
But what about an admonishment or a warning? Wouldn't you say that it carries as much weight if the deliverer bears the same authority and if the purpose of the warning is to only bring about one end result?

No, I wouldn't say so - for the reasons you outlined succinctly below as regards a choice:

Bastage:
I think that there's a claim to be made that in this particular scenario of John 5:39 a warning/admonishment is pretty indistiguishable from a command.

Well, I appreciate your perspective; however, I do not see that verse as pointing to a command. Would it be pointing to a warning/admonishment? Again, I am not persuaded that may be the case. It does not appear that He would be warning them to search the Scriptures; and that was why in reference to the other few verses I cited to compare (such as John 7:52), it would seem that He rather held out a challenge to them.

Bastage:
Let me give you an example:

I warn you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.
I order you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Although the first implies that you have a choice, if you are aware of the consequences of crossing the road blindfolded, do you really have any choice but to heed that warning? In this case, it's therefore no different from an order. Choice is implied but you have no option but to obey.

That's an example that may be appreciated in its own context; but I deem that it is not the case in John 5:39. In the first place, I don't think even if taken together with verse 40, Jesus would be "ordering" or "commanding" them to search the Scriptures - that's what they had been doing all along (compare their pride highlighted in John 7:49 where they assumed a superiority over those they accused of not knowing the law). I don't think that is the sense there; and taken with His custom to address the Jews in that regard, He was not "ordering" them to do so (IMO).

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:
You still have not answered the question. The question is:
In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not?

I want a yes or no answer

Is the word "encourage" the same as a "command"? Id I make that verse a command anywhere? If I did, please kindly quote where I did so.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Well okay, but before we go into matter let's first go into Spirit and soul. I believe that every process of animate and inanimate being is driven by Soul and Spirit. So by Spirit I mean one of the factors that determine events that occur in the world.

Yeye dey worry you! What have you said just now? "One of the factors that determine events that occur in the world". . hmm. Wetin be "factors"? When you define dat one finish, wetin be "event"?

Lol, just feeling on the lighter side this evening and teasing you. Don't mind me - me sef, I yeye. . you know.

I appreciate your perspective and look forward to some more. Honestly, I do.

Cheers.

Pastor AIO:
I think that we would get a lot further if we conducted this conversation in Cantonese, or Urdu because right now I don't think that I even understand Pilgrim's english anymore. Anyway, I've said what I have to say on the subject and it is out there for all who are interested to read it. If you get something from it, good for you, if you don't then too bad. Bye bye people.

Pretty much same here. Enjoyed yours all the way.

Pastor AIO:
ps. before I go, why hasn't image 123 who started the whole John 5:39 fiasco returned to contribute to the debate?

Lol, Pastor AIO. . I may not speak for anyone; but I don't think Image123 wanted a 'fiasco', just as it doesn't seem justcool has come back to set us straight on what he started.

All the same, enjoy.

@cocoman4u,

To "encourage" someone to do something, does that equate to "commanding" that person to do that thing?

cocoman4u:
@pilgrim 1
Yes it actually sound like a command, suggestion, or imperative when you say, "search the scriptures."

Since we are deviating from the real issue let me show how thi started. The guy that posted that verse tried to use it to suggest that Jesus encouraged us to search the scriptures. Here is what the guy posted:

This is justcool's reply:
And here is pilgrim 1's reply:
By the question that pilgrim 1 asked above you can see that she was argueing in the favour of the notion that Jesus encouraged us to read the scriptures. But leter she changed her stance and capitalized on the command.

First, I did not change anything, please. It may seem so to you, but I did not.

Second, I noted early in my rejoinder that there was nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures - even Jesus expounded the matters concerning Himself from the same when He discoursed with His disciples (Luke 24:44-45).

Third, I just pointed out above the reason why some may regard John 5:39 as a "command", and there is no reason for this unless the person reading it so was looking at the first part of that sentence as a stand alone clause, such as: "Search the Scriptures!" or "Ye search the scriptures!" Either way, if they stood alone, it definitely would sound like a command - but we know that is not the case.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
What is going on in the pentecostal movement is in effect the raising of the bible to the level of Diety, Jesus himself. You'll hear statements that the bible is Jesus in writing etc. It is for this reason that discussions such as these are very important and I'm quite glad that we're having it.

Lol, but Pastor, I don't think anyone in this thread has decended so low as to deify the Bible and make it 'Jesus', has there?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I'm sorry but Zeteite is not an imperative.  Perhaps you are not aware of what an imperative is in verb construction.  An imperative is when you are telling someone to do something, whether recommending them to do it or commanding them to do it. An indicative, on the other hand, is when you are indicating that someone is doing something already.  Zeteite means 'You search'. It is an indicative.  It is indicating that the 2nd person is searching. In greek you don't put a pronoun on the indicative but it is understood that it is indicative so when translated to english you must put in the pronoun.  Imperatives never have a pronoun.

Let me point out a few things:

1. "Zeteite is not an imperative", according to you; and "You search" is an indicative, yes? Please read John 7:52 again - and let us know if "Search, and look" was an indicative in which it seems they were "already doing so". If that were the case, why were the Jews using the idicative in that verse when they already were doing so?

2. If you interprete it as "You search" (although the pronoun is not there), does that make it an imperative or an indicative? I'm still on that verse in John 7:52.

Pastor AIO:
For example:  Sit down!  is imperative/  you are sitting down is indicative.

Stand up!  is imperative/ you are standing up is indicative.  

Eat bread is imperative /  you eat bread is indicative.  

so when you say . . .  
. . . that is just plain wrong because imperatives never have a pronoun.

I'm sorry, but have you noticed that you're assuming the clauses stand alone? Are you not the same gentleman who has been talking about the connections of structure of words in the sentence in John 5:39? If I said simply: "Sit down!" and "You sit down!", both can be taken as "commands" if they stood alone - but we note that the sentence does not stand alone as merely "Search the scriptures!" if it did as such, then it stands to be understood as a direct "command", no? Please review and let me know.

Pastor AIO:
In english, to not put in the pronoun in an indicative is definitely an omission, and one which leads the reader to think that the word is an imperative thereby misleading the reader.

I'm not sure there should be any confusion there - as I noted above, if the clause stood alone, one would no doubt take it as a direct command such as: "Search the Scriptures!" and "Ye search the Scriptures!" But that verse is not a "command" even without the pronoun whether in Greek or English; and it makes perfect sense when read in context. This was why I appreciated Bastage's observation earlier and it turned out that he connected it with verse 40 to see that it was not a command. I think that when we slice these things so particularly, that is where we begin to get them all mixed up - and my point is that even when read in English without the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence, it is not a command.

Pastor AIO:
even though both words are translated as You search, in fact they are two very different things. Zeteite means you search and look for something or someone that is not present.  Ereunate means you investigate, probe, examine, search through.  the object you are searching through is very much present it is a matter of investigating it.  I used a text as an example of something that you ereunate.  You can also search/investigate/ereunate the heart, and also ereunate/examine/investigate the deep things of God.  If you zeteite your text then that means you've lost the text and you are looking for it everywhere, under the table, on the shelf, in your bag  . . . where can that text be?  Yet when you are ereunate the text that means the text is right there in your hands and you are probing into it.

I don't see much difference in what I offered earlier. However, between those two words in Greek, where used, they do not lead the reader to the idea that John 5:39 without the pronoun was indicative of a "command".

Cheers.

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:
One thing with pilgrim is that when she is losing she will never admit it, she would rather acuse poeple and make up such subtle distingtions that even she herself does not understand, or she will capitalize on a word or an expression. The bone of contention here is not the word "Command" as she has smartly shifted the issue towards that. The bone of contention is this: Does John 5:39 recomend that we should depend on the scriptures or not?

Dear cocoman4u, I don't know if you're just forcing yourself with these complaints. Where justcool made the allegations, I have referred to that very same thing SEVERAL TIMES already. Now please sir, if you can calm down and admit to the plain fact, you can then rest your heart. You need to go back and read it as simply as it is - and if you don't understand what it is with the "command", please ask questions. NOT IN ONE INSTANCE did I ever imply that John 5:39 was a command - NOT ONE. In fact, I pointed out several times that it was not so - please go back to my earliest rejoinder and see. This attitude of trying to accuse what is vacant against my post is very unhealthy. A reasonable person should not be screaming "lie, lie, lie" when he has nothing to show where I was making false statements. Go back and see for yourself - I had already stated that it was not a command from my earliest riposte!

cocoman4u:
I will give another example of how tricky pilgrim 1 is.
Justcool said:
"The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach."

From the above we see that justcol said that KJV ommited "you". (We all know that this is a fact, because we find "you" in other English translations.) Justcol also infered that This ommition makes the verse sound like a command instead of a reproach. By this he did not say that KJV intentionaly made it a command.

Now pilgrim 1 twisted it and acused justcoll of saying that KJV changed the verse into a command. Here is what pilgrim 1 said:

You see how she twists issues, lie and acuse people.  Show me where justcol made the acused allegations. Nobody ever said that KJV intentionaly changed it to a command. I beleive pilgrim 1 is trying to make justcol the scape goat and thereby divert us from her lies and allegations.

I did not twist anything - and this incessant drib about my twisting anything is a farce. No matter how you slice that verse, it does not "sound like a command" as alleged in justcool. Where people have asked questions as to what was meant by "alleged", "accused" and "imperative", I have clearly enunciated the same things without changing a dot of my postion all along! Please rest your heart - you're not to be disturbed on an adventure of seeing anyone as a scapegoat unless you deliberately want to.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=178839.msg3091153#msg3091153 date=1226748913]Any more mysteries? These can't be all there is. It would be lovely if the thread could be a one-stop source to all things impossible. The ones I've seen so far gave me plenty to chew on. But there has to be more.[/quote]Hi @Mad_Max,

Indeed there are more. I often feel guilty that this thread has been a little slow to grow - especially because I was avoiding the risk of sounding alarmist. There is always the tendency to counterfeit every phenomena that tends to be 'orphic' - such as in the case of crop circles and fake UFO reports. Just trying to double-check those available at hand before posting them. Alas! sometimes we can't always notice the slips and may make errors in judgement. A few would follow this week, as I hope to have some more time to sift them.

Enjoy.

Hi Pastor AIO,

Thanks again for weighing in with that highlight.
______________________

@Others,
Let us all understand something here. That verse was not a command, no matter how anyone slices it. For one to insist that the pronoun 'you' was omitted so that the verse was a mistranslation is an unfair claim to make, especially where the one maintaining that idea has not been able to demonstrate it so. I have demonstrated this by comparing a few verses to the case (John 5:39; 6:26 and 7:52). In the latter case where the pronoun is absent, it agrees in perfect sense that it is not a command even when read simply as "Search, and look". We should not be tied with just a linear idea of the word "imperative" - at least, several languages apply the imperative in many different ways than just our single idea of a "command". The verse in question was not a "command", and charging that KJV had "distorted" the meaning was unfair, for that is not true.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=191998.msg3095117#msg3095117 date=1226852973]Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.[/quote]In all the counter arguments offered so far to what I had pointed out all along from the very onset, I guess some of us need to go back and read Pastor AIO's recent rejoinder again - just to help us see an example of how people can make good sense when they do careful reading of other people's inputs. Where he did not get my point initially, he asked questions and dialogued, and I appreciated his ripostes. . . when at last it is evident that we had been on the same page.

After all has been said, my one question in all the language "research" is this: WHO has been making John 5:39 a COMMAND?!? If it was not a "command" in the first place, why can't we just see that simple point all this while?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
pilgrim.

Check cocoman4u's statement again.
He's saying that justcool did not allege. Justcool stated it as a fact. By saying that he alleged you are either being misleading or telling a lie as accused.
One doesn't need to allege when alluding to a fact.

Touche!!!

I am willing to reason with people where they point out issues, and several people have come round to simply do that instead of bursting in to scream what they should not. Thank you for calmly pointing that out, and I indeed have said several times that justcool had both alleged and accused the KJV of what it should not.

Let me say first that I had used the emphasis "and" above to show that I did not consider both words to be the same thing in this regard. How?

Well, in the case of the "alleged", I had the sense of what he "declared but not proved", "claimed to be true", or otherwise "state; argue; assert".

On the other hand, in the case of "accused", I had the sense that justcool had directly "blamed" or, "made a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against" the KJV.

Now, if what I had said was misleading, I should be able to apologise. I stated these two things in reference to justcool's: he had 'alleged' and had 'accused' the KJV unfairly - to the end that it (the KJV) was making the said case a matter of a "command".

In this regard, it seemed so to me, that justcool's declaration was an accusation, especially as he had said: [list]

justcool:
In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

[/list]

. . . and my point in pointing these things out was that -

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=191998.msg3093638#msg3093638 date=1226792215]The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."[/quote]Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.

cocoman4u:
In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.

Did all or any of the omission and insertion of the pronouns from any of those languages indicate the imperative as a "command"?

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:
Lie! Lie! Lie!

I see it's all yours, because this is what you said:

cocoman4u:
What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV,

. . . even if you shout it a million times, justcool actually alleged it so:

[quote author=justcool link=topic=191998.msg3074235#msg3074235 date=1226454766]
The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.[/quote]Why didn't you take the time to go back and check instead of bursting in to scream out "Lie! Lie! Lie"? The one thing that I marvel at you guys is to pretend to ignore the facts so you can find a way of screaming what you should not. Please take it easy - the case is there just in case you might like to re-check.

Shalom.