₦airaland Forum

.

Enigma: For the records, I need to make a clarification.

The quotation of Ignatius that I used is from the Epistle to the Tarsians. However, that epistle is disputed as to whether it is a genuine work of Ignatius.

So instead, I quote from a different epistle of Ignatius which is less controversial i.e.the one to The Trallians.

you know me that church fathers whose authority superceeds that of the bible is not for me.

AIO will deal with that when he comes round.

Enigma: truthislight

I think there is some confusion and misunderstanding, so let me try and clear some of them up.

1. I do not claim that you used the exact words that I wrote: my point is that you agreed with another poster that "it is impossible" to have a translation without doctrinal bias. If that remains your position, then you cannot argue that the JW's own NWT is not affected by bias. Simples.

2. I have not said that a translation cannot be affected by bias; I gave you the example of the JW's NWT which is one of the versions most often accused of bias; I also pointed to the debate going on about the trustworthiness of the NIV etc

3. I do not accuse you per se of making the allegation of bias (and if I did so unfairly I apologise). Rather, I have pointed to examples of such allegations on the thread including especially the allegation that the "institution" that "collated" and "translated" the Bible had an "agenda".

4. Yes, I understand your point that you did not make the case about "story" and "mouth"; so it is not an issue primarily for you. Nevertheless, as the NWT translates "logos" as "Word", I think you also need to examine why they chose the word* "Word" (*no pun and all that) and not the alternatives ----- like "story", "mouth" or even for that matter* "matter" etc.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.



Edited

i belief that i have stated my stance clearly enough and i also belief that AIO is of age to speak for himself.

Enigma: 3. I do not accuse you per se of making the allegation of bias (and if I did so unfairly I apologise). Rather, I have pointed to examples of such allegations on the thread including especially the allegation that the "institution" that "collated" and "translated" the Bible had an "agenda".

but you know that the words of this institution church fathers carry more weight than the bible?

If i am wrong i stand corrected.

My point is that some people follow the bible with "a revelation" of their own that they feel is correct.

.

Enigma: At the red bolded the answer is: No, not necessarily; there are rules of interpretation, whether it be of Greek grammar and construction and contextual reading of material, that can assist with identifying the best translation out of what might be the possible range. That is why I made the point about modern translators who often are drawn from interdenominational backgrounds and IIRC might have even on occasion included atheists. In that instance the conclusion on that verse would not be because of doctrinal bias.

your statement here does not invalidate the fact that people can still be influence by "doctrine"

that you included atheist, does it change any thing? No.

Lets take for instance that our NI logicboy as passionate atheist that he is now, what do you thing his views of what the person that "christiandom" termed as there God is?

Answer = Jesus. Via is catholic upbringing/trinity.
That he is an atheist now does not change anything.

Beside, who pays the piper dictate the tone.

Are you forgetting we are talking about religion that operate on "revelation and annointing" ? What will an atheist view hold in an issue of this sort?

Stop being emotional and be real.

Emotion/doctrinals is even driving you right now on this issue and you then say it is not a factor, says who?
It is.
Unless you are saying that Yahweh cannot write a book that is consistent.

Enigma: By the way I have another question that I have deliberately chosen to ask separately:

Do you think that when John wrote John 1:1 he too was affected by doctrinal bias or not?

this are all in your mind.

Please do come out of it.

Lets be realistic.

Enigma: Check this out:

"Nigerians are frauds."

Interpretaion 1 = "All Nigerians are frauds".

Is that a possible interpretation? Is that a legitimate interpretation? Does that interpretation break any rule? Would you agree with that interpretation?


Interpretation 2 = "Some Nigerians are frauds".

Is that a possible interpretation? Is that a legitimate interpretation? Does that interpretation break any rule? Would you agree with that interpretation?

since you have asked for my views on that i will endeavour to give an appropriate answer since we are talking about the bible.

One cannot stand from a distance without a good knowledge/study of a country like Abraham did on sodom and expect to get it right from estimation.

To get an accurate factual state of things that will be close to the fact one need to take up an extensive research programme of the people of Nigeria and come up with a realistic data base on personal study/interaction/experience.

Without such indept study it can only be a fine guess at both ways.

Either 1 or 2.

However, from a distance one can make postulations as is consistent with human nature/observation and if the population is true to kind it can remain as a notion but not the fact.

I am aware that most nigerian are honest, but that has not prevent the world from having the notion that "Nigerians are corrupt" and that remains the notion.

so also, to get the fact of an issue realistically one needs to carry out an indept study of the matter at hand to know absolutely if it is 1 or 2.

So also, to arrive at the actual sense of what the bible says a singular scripture cannot be taken in isolation but should be considered in conjunction with other part of the same book
to get the general sense of it.

Though you can have your rational notion and assumption, the fact of the matter can only come from an indept study.

This also lead to my stance that "doctrinals" can influence translation.

And i am entitle to my opinion.

However, with an indebt study of the bible it is obvious that certain translation have been affected by personal doctrinal stance.

^^^
this is not pointing hand at an individual, but is a regional assertion and i am entitle to it.

Are all translation/beliefs the same even on the same issues? No

on nos two (2)

absolute generalisation is not the fact and cannot be considered to be true without facts and figures.

Does that mean that it is impossible? No, it is a possibility.

But to make a statement of fact you must show evidence of proof.

Emotions are not necessary.

Enigma: I'm sorry you take exception to my phrasing. I'm happy to rephrase the question: do you believe that the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible is also affected by doctrinal bias?



Here, you are contradicting yourself I'm afraid! You have said just a couple of posts above that no translation can be free of doctrinal bias; you cannot now make an exception for the JWT Bible. It is either that every single Bible version or translation is affected by "doctrinal bias" or you have to retract and/or rephrase your earlier point.



You are going into arguments about belief in Trinity; this thread is not about that. And you know that that debate has been pursued on several other threads.




This is a false claim: first let me see you reconcile your preference of John 1:1 as "a god" with John 1:18 and the other interpretation of 'logos' as "story" or "mouth" with Revelation 19:13 based on the Greek text and construction. You can use the NWT of the JWs if you like.




As I said, try and demonstrate this "consistency" by reconciling John 1:1 with John 1:18 and Revelation 19:13.




If you don't know the rules, how can you accuse those who translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God" of doctrinal bias. Is it not better to be cautious or circumspect? As I have said before: those alleging "bias" about the interpretation "the Word was god" have not shown any SINGLE evidence other than mere assertion!


[quote author=Enigma]I'm sorry you take exception to my phrasing. I'm happy to rephrase the question: do you believe that the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible is also
affected by doctrinal bias?

like i said, there is an article on wiki that i red that consider the issue on grammatical basis, i wish i will be able to lay hands on it.

I simply pointed out that doctrinal bias can influence traslation as that will will most likely give a pointer to the translators direction of understanding the issue under consideration.

I did not mention or accuse any particular person or group of person as having been bias.

and As such, i take an exception to your intention here.

I also said that consistency of the scriptures, Genesis to Revelation would also be paramount to whatever one is doing with the scriptures, except the person take for granted that God is irrational and inconsistent that is why his word should be as such.

Enigma: Here, you are contradicting yourself I'm afraid! You have said just a couple of posts above that no translation can be free of doctrinal bias; you cannot now make an exception for the JWT Bible. It is either that every single Bible version or translation is affected by "doctrinal bias" or you have to retract and/or rephrase your earlier point.

Are you sure that i had used the exact same words you have chosen to express my stance?

Hmmm!

Enigma: You have said just a couple of posts above that "no translation can be free of doctrinal bias"

^^^

are those the words i used or you have spiced it up?

If i am not too dull. Lol.
I believe i have been of the view that it is possible for individual held doctrine to be a pointer to translations.

But that consistencies should be paramount since it would be silly to imagine that God is irrational.

Though you have not proven that those are my statement, i wish to observed that it is a rational observation that i had made that "doctrinals" can influence translation and not what you have imputed up there.
(lol, enigma, i salute o!)

Enigma: You are going into arguments about belief in Trinity; this thread is not about that. And you know that that debate has been pursued on several other threads.

lol.
One cannot talk about bible translation without consideration for inconsistencies/consistencies to what "God hard said" in other part of his words, otherwise you will render his word invalid and confusing to the readers and this will create a lot of confussion which will no longer serve the interest of God.

Enigma: This is a false claim: first let me see you reconcile your preference of John 1:1 as "a god" with John 1:18 and the other interpretation

this i said should be the work of the experts.

Enigma: logos' as "story" or "mouth" with Revelation 19:13 based on the Greek text and construction. You can use the NWT of the JWs if you like.

this is AIO's call.
But i think he was expressing his views based on how he sees it.

Enigma: If you don't know the rules, how can you accuse those who translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God" of doctrinal bias.

did i ?
I only pointed out a possibility.

Enigma: Is it not better to be cautious or circumspect? As I have said before: those alleging "bias" about the interpretation "the Word was god" have not shown any SINGLE evidence other than mere assertion!

have i not been cautious?

Yes i have?
You just dont seem to like my view.
But AIO and i pointed out possibilities

Enigma: 1. Do you agree that your own organisation's translation i.e. the JW's NWT is affected by doctrinal bias?

i dont know why you wish to align me befor facing the issue as we have been doing.

To your question.

If the JW had not seen it to be inconsistent with other scriptures that shows that Jesus is completely different from the father may be they would not have shown the difference and maybe, there are other grammatical rules they are following that i that is not an expert will not know.

Not with Jesus saying that he does not know the day and the how.

Beside, the word was said to be with God.

How can Jesus be with himself in the beginning?

Again, other parts of the scripture said that Jesus does not know the day and the hour.

It is not wise to allow a controversial issue to contradict other part of the bible to please "church fathers"

Enigma: 2. Do you believe that a single verse like John 1:1 can be translated without doctrinal bias but simply based on its grammatical construction and contextual evidence?

well, like i had said, consistency should be paramount.

And there are grammatical rule that me that dont speak greek should not be in place to go into.

But there is this wiki article that discussed this issue and did not say that they the JW have broken any rule, and that was a discussion among the experts and not with someone that cannot speak greek.

.

Enigma: I agree!!!! My own is to try with all best efforts using spiritual and intellectual faculties available to understand what Scripture is trying to communicate.

Therefore if anyone has evidence that the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is because of doctrinal bias, let them table it!

So far we have seen NONE --- beyond mere assertion!




And many people acting with honesty, integrity, NO doctrinal bias and with enormous skill in Greek conclude that "the Word was God" is the appropriate translation of John 1:1.

Let me give you just a little demonstration: the apostle John wrote John 1:1. One of that very apostle's own students is said to be Ignatius. Ignatius worked with the original Greek; he never knew of any translation into English and such like. This very Ignatius, student of apostle John the author of John 1:1 said,

Bear in mind his use of "God the Word" in addition to "the Word was God"!

like i have said, am not an expert on this(greek), so i will leave that to the expert.

But the use of capital and or small letters is to point out when the translator is of the view that it is either the almighty or not.

So, it is right to conclude that trinitarian will natural wish to use capital letters at John 1:1 to show that Jesus is the almighty God there.

But none trinitarians will also use the small letters to show the difference between Jesus and the almighty God there.

It then all boils down to doctrine. No?

For me a none translator that have seen where Jesus said that the father sent him.

The father is greater than him.

I find it very difficult to relate with some certain notion.

Pastor AIO: That would be quite impossible. Everybody has a perspective, an angle they are coming from.














That would be quite impossible. Everybody has a perspective, an angle they are coming from.

well, i guess that is why we are here discussing it.

But i dont know why our friend Enigma will not want to see it that way, though impossible.

But this impossibility started when?

Enigma: @ truthislight

To clarify, your friend is trying to point out to you that Acts 28:6 does not use the word* "logos" (*no pun intended). Instead the word for "a god" is 'theos' or 'theon'.

Hahaha.

Lol.

Good one.
My bad.

My interest here is on how doctrine can or cannot influence translation.

Enigma: Ah, subconscious admission of using diversionary tactics.

Interestingly, it's been less pathetic on this thread than others that I've seen.

dont mind my error about "logos" there.

I have removed it, it was not that necessary though.

Pastor AIO: ol boy, change the red bolded quick before he pounces on it and starts to make a song and dance about it as a diversionary tactic.

ok, i get what you mean, my bad.

Enigma: Did the early manuscripts have commas, full stops, colons, semi colons etc?




I'm not sure I follow. What I know is that speech does not distinguish between capital letters and small letters; but even then it is pretty easy to know when a person is speaking about the one God Almighty or about a god that is (claimed to be) some form of 'deity'.




If you have access to the original language and you understand it to a level that you can make a translation, then please supply us with your translation of John 1:1, And maybe also John 1:18, Revelation 19:13 --- I actually still have a host of others.



If you know how "they" pronounced it. I'd be interested to hear. My reference was to extant Greek manuscripts.

If the aspostles died off in the 1ce, could you tell us of the earliest person or people that you are aware of who was/were using the writings of the apostles? That might help us here.




Now this is interesting.

1. If you translate John 1:1 as "a god", you will then have to explain why that is not contradictory with John 1:18 --- unless you also translate John 1:18 as ---- "a god".

2. If you translate "logos" in John 1:1 as "story" or "mouth", you will have to explain why it should not also be translated as "story" or "mouth" in Revelation 19:13.

See, this lark is pretty easy!




I'm afraid I don't know what this is about! I don't know what in my posts led to that.




As I said, if you understand the original languages well enough I would very much like to see your interpretation of the passages we have been discussing.



Sorry, I don't understand this point; perhaps if you make it clearer I'd be able to address it.




If you feel that I am asking you to follow "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, then I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. My point was that before those things or "churches", Christians had access to John 1:1 etc etc.

the point is pretty made that doctrine as AIO puts it did and is still influencing scriptural translation.

My bone here is that doctrine should not in any way influence scriptural translation but the consistency of scripture should be paramount.

Cus, the word under consideration is the use of God/god and the context should naturally lead one to the right conclusion but with this advent of big and small alphabet translators can now point out what they believe the portion of the bible in question is talking about.

*edited*

Enigma: Did the early manuscripts have commas, full stops, colons, semi colons etc?




I'm not sure I follow. What I know is that speech does not distinguish between capital letters and small letters; but even then it is pretty easy to know when a person is speaking about the one God Almighty or about a god that is (claimed to be) some form of 'deity'.




If you have access to the original language and you understand it to a level that you can make a translation, then please supply us with your translation of John 1:1, And maybe also John 1:18, Revelation 19:13 --- I actually still have a host of others.



If you know how "they" pronounced it. I'd be interested to hear. My reference was to extant Greek manuscripts.

If the aspostles died off in the 1ce, could you tell us of the earliest person or people that you are aware of who was/were using the writings of the apostles? That might help us here.




Now this is interesting.

1. If you translate John 1:1 as "a god", you will then have to explain why that is not contradictory with John 1:18 --- unless you also translate John 1:18 as ---- "a god".

2. If you translate "logos" in John 1:1 as "story" or "mouth", you will have to explain why it should not also be translated as "story" or "mouth" in Revelation 19:13.

See, this lark is pretty easy!




I'm afraid I don't know what this is about! I don't know what in my posts led to that.




As I said, if you understand the original languages well enough I would very much like to see your interpretation of the passages we have been discussing.



Sorry, I don't understand this point; perhaps if you make it clearer I'd be able to address it.




If you feel that I am asking you to follow "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, then I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. My point was that before those things or "churches", Christians had access to John 1:1 etc etc.

the point is pretty made that doctrine as AIO puts it did and is still influencing scriptural translation.

My bone here is that doctrine should not in any way influence scriptural translation but the consistency of scripture should be paramount.

Cus, the word under consideration is God/god and the context should naturally lead one to the right conclusion but with this advent of big and small alphabet translators can now point out what they believe the portion of the bible in question is talking about.

.

Enigma: We have evidence of how people who were working with the Greek text, long before its translation into English, understood the text.

So all these talk of translation into English as "a god" is not as impressive as its purveyors think.

Truthislight, I do not know your particular vernacular but I'd be interested in how John 1:1 will be translated into your own language. I know how it is translated into Yoruba and may bring that to the table later.

Enigma: We have evidence of how people who were working with the Greek text, long before its translation into English, understood the text.

i dont know the use of that ^^^

are you saying that the translator today dont know how to speak greek ?

Enigma: So all these talk of translation into English as "a god" is not as impressive as its purveyors think.

but if their was no capitaisation of alphabet, should it all have been written as "god" or as "God" without considering the consistencies of the other part of the scriptures? But then, the early church introduce capitalisation for a reason.

We are talking about consistensis of scriptures, Gods word. God cannot be irrational.

Older translations also employed the use of the small alphabet were they feel that it is not talking about the almighty God like in acts of the apostles.(paul case "god"

so, why do we now say that the doctrine of the early church cannot influence the placement of capitalisation of God/god?

Enigma: Truthislight, I do not know your particular vernacular but I'd be interested in how John 1:1 will be translated into your own language. I know how it is translated into Yoruba and may bring that to the table later.

so, in this vanacular translation, preconceived notion/doctrine will not influence the translation of John 1:1 ?

Anyway, relax.

I can assure you that my vanacular is not greek?

Enigma: Maybe; but firstly, even that raises questions e,g, early translators into what language? And why are translators TODAY working with ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts STILL translating John 1:1 as those "early translators"?

Secondly, the unsupported (or perhaps ill-thought or ill-expressed) allegations go beyond what you have stated. Take just one example:

Raises questions inter alia like:
- which institution "collated" the Bible?
- was it that same institution that "translated" the Bible?
- into what language did that institution translate the Bible?
- was that institution the "Church of the Roman Empire" the guy later referred to?
- is that "Church of the Roman Empire" the same as the Roman Catholic Church?

Now more serious issues for a Christian would be: before there was such a thing as "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, how did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 (and related passages)?

Before there was this "Church of the Roman Empire" thing, did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 to be referring to Jesus and did they understand it to say Jesus i.e. "the Word was God".

We do indeed have evidence of how Christians saw John 1:1 before there was the Roman Catholic Church however you want to define that (legitimately and reasonably) or before what I believe is being called "the Church of the Roman Empire".

We have evidence of how people who were working with the Greek text, long before its translation into English, understood the text.

So all these talk of translation into English as "a god" is not as impressive as its purveyors think.

Truthislight, I do not know your particular vernacular but I'd be interested in how John 1:1 will be translated into your own language. I know how it is translated into Yoruba and may bring that to the table later.

Did the early manuscript have capital letters and lower case letters/alphabet?

In what way do different dialects pronounce the word "God" and "god"?

Do the pronounce it differently?

Enigma: Before there was this "Church of the Roman Empire" thing, did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 to be referring to Jesus and did they understand it to say Jesus i.e. "the Word was God".

^^^

why should i be interested in that ^^^ if i have access to the original manuscript and can read the language?

Do we have a recorded version of how they pronounce it or it is this same original manuscript they made use of?

The apostles that wrote the scriptures all died off in the 1ce.

Should it not matter that the bible should not be contradictory?
That the word of God should be consistent Genesis to Revelation?

Are men not fallible again?

Oh! "Spirit filled men" what of the MOG's of today that are also "spirit filled"?
Are they also not fallible?

If i can see the original manuscript in "black and white" (written) the sense gotten that will ensure not to contradict the scriptures should be my concern and perogative, being my aim Expercailly since there was no capital letters and small case alphabet "therein".

Unless i am wrong, they all sound the same way i think.

And are spelt "logos"

Enigma: Now more serious issues for a Christian would be: before there was such a thing as "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, how did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 (and related passages)?

should i follow the consistensis of the scriptures or i should follow the "church" ?

If the "truth" is the word of God and that is what men need to be saved, of what use will the word of the church be to me if it deviate from the "truth" ?

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

TroGunn: Form what you said, I have to assume the following:

1) That you accept the the Bible cannot contradict itself, being as contradiction relates to confusion and God is not one of confusion. So all the scriptures must tally and provide a whole and consistent view.

On the other two questions,

2) There's more than enough evidence that Jesus and the Almighty God ( his Father Yahweh) are different persons, different entities.

3) There's ample evidence that Jesus is not equal to his Father in power or wisdom. Jesus derives or is given his name, power, wisdom by his Father.

There are many verses and many threads that have discussed this on NL, including this one. You may want to go thru the thread and bring up something new so we don't make this cyclic.

I'll let you ponder over this one scripture ( and there are many others), which corroborates without any doubt points 2 and 3 above.

1 Corinthians 15:25-28
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

25 For He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,
27 for “He hath put all things under His feet.” But when He saith “all things” are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, who did put all things under Him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son Himself also be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

well done though.

However, the best way that "Just comers" to the thread can be taken seriously is for them to go to the start of the thread or take a quote he believes is wrong and treat it, and not to just jump in, out of context, and start posting his personal opinion that was not the issues under consideration from the start.

While ignoring how we got hear at the first place.

Best bet, if the formation/foundation is wrong, then, let him attack the foundation by bringing it out and correcting it.
Peace.

Now, lets put this into perspective.

Enigma: ^^^

Bros, I don't recall that anyone has said that translations are not or cannot be influenced by docrine. I have certainly not said that. The most obvious example where a translation is evidently affected by preconceived doctrine is the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible ---- but it is not the only one. You can even presently see threads arguing that the NIV etc are not to be trusted and so on.

and AIO was saying that the rule does not favour just one form.

italo: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god"

--Jehovah's witnesses Bible.

and he:

Pastor AIO: This translation is not wrong when you look at the original greek. One could even translate the passage as 'In the beginning was the word, the word was with Divinity, and the word was Divine".

Using the word divinity kind of depersonalises it. Many things can be divine without sharing one identity.

This is one of the main reasons that I argue that the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda and that as such one cannot understand the bible till they understand the agenda and are down with it. The Church of the Roman Empire decided that Jesus was God and that influenced how they translated that passage. Anybody that is not down with the Trinity concept will have to find another way to translate the passage. And that is exactly what the JWs do.

In absoute terms no one is right and no one is wrong. It depends on what agenda you are allied to.

if i am right.

He was saying that what people today take to be the "standard translation" may have been influence by the doctrine of the early translators and not that what is contain therein(early translation) is the message of the original manuscript.

And he proved his point with the coptic case of the 2ce translation.

Now, lets put this into perspective.

Enigma: ^^^

Bros, I don't recall that anyone has said that translations are not or cannot be influenced by docrine. I have certainly not said that. The most obvious example where a translation is evidently affected by preconceived doctrine is the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible ---- but it is not the only one. You can even presently see threads arguing that the NIV etc are not to be trusted and so on.

and AIO was saying that the rule those not favour just one form.

italo: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god"

--Jehovah's witnesses Bible.

and he:

Pastor AIO: This translation is not wrong when you look at the original greek. One could even translate the passage as 'In the beginning was the word, the word was with Divinity, and the word was Divine".

Using the word divinity kind of depersonalises it. Many things can be divine without sharing one identity.

This is one of the main reasons that I argue that the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda and that as such one cannot understand the bible till they understand the agenda and are down with it. The Church of the Roman Empire decided that Jesus was God and that influenced how they translated that passage. Anybody that is not down with the Trinity concept will have to find another way to translate the passage. And that is exactly what the JWs do.

In absoute terms no one is right and no one is wrong. It depends on what agenda you are allied to.

if i am right.

He was saying that what people today take to be the "standard translation" may have been influence by the doctrine of the early translators and not that what is contain thereing(early translation) is the message of the original manuscript.

plappville: @boomark, but John the Baptist said He is not Elijah.
They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

John 1:20, 25.

tell him for me o!

Enigma: ^^^ Abi now! The fellow dey use the well known Coptic Bible argument when his own allegation and (the thread) is about English translations. Meanwhile the argument about the Coptic Bible is answered in the very Wikipedia wey the guy man dey post but e no see am of course.

The guy wey make allegation about the "Church of the Roman Empire" (we don't even know what he means by that; bifor bifor na Roman Catholic Church hin dey talk) has not produced a single evidence to support the allegations. Yet, e dey complain say people with no duty of proof have not been gracious or kind enough to teach him about principles of interpretation/translation! Make he dey joke or dey yoke continue.

well, you did proved your reason for the "mouth" logos though.

But i think that he(IO) did also prove his reasons for saying that:
"certain translation were influence by there doctrine"

that is if i red the thread well though.

Enigma: Anyway, most of the post above is irrelevant so I will not waste my time with much of the post.

obadiah777: YOU DO ERR NOT KNOWING SCRIPTURES BOOKMARK. THE LETTER 'J' WAS INVENTED IN THE 1600s. THE LORD EXISTED WAY BEFORE THE 1600s. SO HIS NAME WAS NEVER JESUS OR JEHOVAH. THESE ARE GREEK TITLES. SO I AM MOCKING GREEK TITLES NOT THE NAME OF OUR LORD

lol.

How old are you.

Am asking because your ignorance is increasing exponentially.

Is it that you dont know that the hebrew writing did not have vowels but was written with consonants in the form of abreviation/symbols or your half baked knowledge is proving to be the disaster that half knowledge with pride and pompussity always is?

The tetragramaton used to represent YHWH can not really be Y,H,W,H since the symbols were kind of written differently.

but it is YHWH in our modern writings when transcribed to later in use today.

Are you saying that since the Jews did not have letter "J" they could not have used there symbol to represent Yahweh/Jehovah in there own way?

The Yahweh that we use most often here has letter "E" a vowel that was not a thing that the jews used, are you saying that putting the vowel "E" that is in use today and making it readable to all is an insult to the almighty God?

Your kind will wish that the name of the almighty should be lost as to served the purpose of your master, Yahweh's number one enemy. That reference to that name YHWH should not be used in whatever form.

Your kind of stupidity is of the first order and it amazes me Greatly that one can be this stupid.

Just like Yahweh, Jehovah is addition of vowels and is the oldest version of the pronunciation that is known till date refering to the God of the Jews.

But whenever you opened your mouth ignorance and stupidity gusheses out like river.

You really need help since you have no regards for holy things.

If not it being a forum that we wish to correct and help people to learn, your kind is kept at arms length.
*sigh*

ijawkid: I'm not showing any frustration here,I'm only trying to show you how jejune you are..........

I want you to go check up the original hebrew and greek texts to fiÑd out really if the above translations you've labelled ""frauds"" are actually spurious or not...........

Don't look at the KJV ,instead study the the originals.......
_____________________________

And it seems you know me very well............

1...First of all I'll ask you.....:::::: the NWT restores back the tetragrammaton(YHWH) in all the verses as it appeared in the original hebrew and greek texts...... how many places in the KJV can we find the ""tetragrammaton"" being used and how many times does it appear.??.......

Note:::::.....the tetragrammaton appears more than 6000 times in the hebrew scriptures alone...........

read this.

He is on a mission.

free123: who says this guy is not mixing things up?
NIV, NASB and NWT even NKJV are all for new agers, those who deny Christ's divine nature, anti christs and followers of men. These men cannot stand the chance of hearing that Jesus Christ is God even Almighty God.

one cant say one abhors catholics and JW's doctrines yet uses their version of bible. one cannot mix things up and claim that he is standing alone or for the truth.

frosbel u once opened a thread to show how Christ is d same as God Almighty, u now deny that. It is now obvious to me that ur version of light is that of JW that keeps getting brighter with no sight of brightest light at all. who knows what u will come up with next time?

well, we are getting to understand you better.

ijawkid: And it seems you know me very well............

this is what double ID can cause.

Maybe he uses one well known/regular ID and hides behind this one to post this his rage on NIV.

Maybe i need a second ID myself. Lol.
But why?

Got no skeleton to hide.

ijawkid: Instead of you to take us to the hebrew and greek texts of those bible verses you are here ranting about how the NIV is inferior and a fraud.....

I can percieve you are one of those persons who think the KJV is the only right bible rendition..........

It might surprise how the KJV is filled with so much flaws.........

My advice:::::.....go to the root words Of those verses to see if they are right or wrong rather than to come out here bleating...........the bible wasn't written in english so let's get back to the originals and confirm what we have now.........

but this is a good advice and a rational thing to do since the bible was not written in english from the start.

We should help ourselves and make some prudent research and comperism with any of the older manuscripts.

Except we have come to the conclusion that the translators and copist that worked on the king james version are infelible, otherwise, the only rational thing to do is to learn from the "prototype" that are available now(greek manuscripts)

carrying two works by two different people and taking that copied from the "prototype" and taking one as an authority is a little below daftness.

free123: NIV removes the Blood of Jesus Christ

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In
whom we have redemption THROUGH
HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:"
The NIV reads, "In whom we have
redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

TheNIV rips out the precious words
"THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS
BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . .
without shedding of BLOOD is no
remission." That old song says, "What
can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT
THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

this is very insightfull, he says no blood of Jesus in NIV bible but below what do we have? :

frosbel: Ephesians 1:7
New International Version (NIV)
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

Acts 20:28
New International Version (NIV)
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.

is that not blood in NIV?

Hmmm!

Well, all may not be absolutely true

frosbel: Ephesians 1:7
New International Version (NIV)
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

Acts 20:28
New International Version (NIV)
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.

is this op a fraud?