Are all "bibles" the word of God?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Spirit and Truth, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Below is an interesting article / comparison that I read a while back. I would like the members of this forum, many who appear to be studied in the various mainstream bible versions to comment on this.

    http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/snbibles.htm
     
  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I can tell, skimming through the Restored Name King James, that is known by the "Holy Name Bible" mentioned in the first article, the only thing that is changed between the KJV and this version is that God is written as "Elohim" is used for the name of God, as well as other Hebrew characters used to portray other Biblical characters. I don't know how this affects doctrine, and Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus" in the first place. That's the English version. My guess would be that KJVO's would think it's closer to truth than the modern versions.

    I'd never read it, but I don't have much of a problem with it, I guess. Granted I haven't done much research on those who made the quick editing needed to substitute the names, so my mind could be changed if there was something was shown that proved sinister. If I can consider a translation written by those who didn't really care for my denomination (like the KJV), then why not this?
     
  3. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    I can understand how you would come to that conclusion upon initial viewing, but the problem is a litter deeper than what it appears upon examination. The sacred name people believe that God and Jesus are pagan names. They believe that Jesus was derived from zeus, and that God was derived from gad, the "god" of fortune, so they actually despise the Name of God and Jesus. Their accusations are unfounded, and have no scholarly foundation. They have also taken their choice of Hebrew names, and inserted them randomly into a Greek text [NT]. Would this not effectively, be changing the word of God? Just a thought.
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that God is the English version of His name. Jesus is the English version of His name. At the beginning of time, their names were transliterated as "God" and "Jesus." I'm still confused as to why this affects their theology.

    It doesn't seem random at all. They try to come up with the closest approximation, working backwards from the Greek, to try to figure out what their real names were. I've heard mainstream theologians talk about how Jesus' name in Hebrew was more akin to our "Joshua" than "Jesus." What's the point?

    It's changing the KJV, but not the originals. By that same logic, we should not have translated such phrases as "Petros" as "Peter."
     
  5. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott:

    The problem is that God is the English version of His name. Jesus is the English version of His name. At the beginning of time, their names were transliterated as "God" and "Jesus." I'm still confused as to why this affects their theology.

    S&T:

    Because they hate the name God and Jesus, and expound that they are from pagan origin. This is why they changed them. In Hebrew God has many Names. The closest approximation to God is El. Jesus is transliterated from the Greek Iesous to it's English rendering. It originated in Aramaic [Eeshoo] or Hebrew [Yeshua]. The Aramaic and Hebrew are in agreement [Yod / Shin/ Vav / Ayin ] It is fairly easy to see how Eeshoo became Iesou . No magic or paganism involved. They try to say that Jesus means "healing zeus". zeus in greek [if I remember correctly] is actually ze. It is all so ridiculous to "translate" your own bible because of such a notion, in my opinion.
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are several words in the Bible that are transliterated to English from Hebrew. Many of the Hebrew place names, for instance. I don't have much of a problem if they, for instance, use the actual transliteration for the Hebrew "Elohim" or the Tetragammon. Why should I?
     
  7. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott:

    There are several words in the Bible that are transliterated to English from Hebrew. Many of the Hebrew place names, for instance. I don't have much of a problem if they, for instance, use the actual transliteration for the Hebrew "Elohim" or the Tetragammon. Why should I?

    S&T:

    They do this because they hate the name of Jesus.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The Jehovah Witnesses in our area are HYPER about using the sacred tetragrammeton. Their insistance on its use - as the basis for THEIR interpretation of Jehovah of course - shows how easy it is to skew into a cultic viewpoint.

    Look at the people involved in this "Sacred Name" sect - a list of doctrinal deviates that I would be ashamed to associate with.

    It may be interesting, but it is not for me. I LOVE the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) that will use Hebrew words, names, etc in a teaching format, not some mystical, hidden meanings - as does this group.

    (Aside: NOT trying to paint with a broad brush, but David Koresh taught a LOT using "Hebrew" names, transliterations, special sacred meanings, etc. Even his pseudonym Koresh is from "Cyrus" in Isaiah.)
     
  9. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob:

    [partial quote]
    I LOVE the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) that will use Hebrew words, names

    S&T:

    Upon closer examination, you will find that there is some terminology that is Yiddish in origin, not Hebrew. Also there are some Messianic groups that have claimed that there are problems with the TeNaKh translation. [errors]
     
  10. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    But they don't have His original name. That's the important part - who cares what they think of the English version of the name. There's no magic in it. The power is found in the person of Jesus Christ.
     
  11. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott stated:

    But they don't have His original name. That's the important part - who cares what they think of the English version of the name. There's no magic in it. The power is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

    S&T:

    His Hebrew Name transliterated in it's long form would have been Yehoshua, short form would be Yeshua. If you look at the Hebrew in this "translation", you will find that it is Yod / Hey / Shin / Vav / Ayin which transliterates as YAHshua. There is no such name in the Hebrew Masoretic text, therefore it is a made up name. Are they confessing another Jesus? In their attempt to eliminate that "pagan" name, they made up a new one. Check it out.
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really don't know Hebrew, do you?
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The One Name folk are to Iesus
    as KJVO is to God's word.

    God's Living Word is Messiah Iesus (KJV1611)
    or Jesus (KJV1769). Iesus has many wonderful
    names, in as many languages as there are on
    earth (and then several more [​IMG] )!!!
    God does not limit His Living Word
    to one-and-only-one name.

    God's Written Word is the Holy Bible.
    Holy Bible has many names like:
    KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1873, nKJV, NIV,
    NAS, NLT, NASB, Peterson
    Translation (The MEssage), Amplified Bible,
    Contemporary English Version, etc.
    God does not limit His Written Word
    to one-and-only-one book.

    Ain't God Good!!!

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott:
    You really don't know Hebrew, do you?

    S&T:

    State what's on your mind Scott. Speaking from a position of youthful pride is ugly.

    [ December 30, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Spirit and Truth ]
     
  15. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not youhtful pride at all. You've said before that you have a working knowledge of Hebrew. It sure doesn't seem that way, so why bother responding?
     
  16. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott:

    It's not youhtful pride at all. You've said before that you have a working knowledge of Hebrew. It sure doesn't seem that way, so why bother responding?

    S&T:

    Back up your statements Scott.
     
  17. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    Since you seem to be speaking from the lofty place of understanding, I was wondering what your opinion of this explanation is?

    Yeshua (short form) or Yehoshua (long form)--Hebrew Joshua--comes across into Greek as Iesous. Greek has no consonant y, so it uses initial i (cf. Ioudaios for Yhudim), which comes out sounding like a y when it's pronounced together with a following vowel anyway. Greek also has no letter equivalent to Hebrew shin (/sh/), so the standard transliteration is sigma (/s/). The final a in the Hebrew forms is a glide-element that shows up in other Semitic languages but isn't really part of the word per se. The final vowel should be u, but because of the gutteral consonant 'ayin that comes at the end of the name, an a-vowel is added. So the final u-sound is paralleled by Greek ou (Greek upsilon would have a different sound--like French long-u or German u-umlaut). The s on the end is part of a standard conversion from other languages to Greek. Since Greek nouns almost always have case endings, including names, the s is added to give the name the right feel. We get the same rendering for Joshua in the Greek OT, so I don't see any reason that it would mean something different in the NT.
     
  18. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you not reference your works:

    The above was from:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/3856

    The problem is that you said you said on an earlier thread, and I quote: "I am quite familiar with Aramaic, and Hebrew." Your statement on the previous page has shown this to be dishonest. I don't see much use in debating someone about something when they can't be honest about what they do and do not know. Sorry about that.
     
  19. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott:

    Why do you not reference your works

    S&T:

    I never stated or even alluded to the fact that it was my work, I merely asked you for an opinion on it. [nothing dishonest there] It seems that you constantly like to criticize others, but I haven't seen you put up one explanation in Greek or Hebrew yet, but you continue to try and down the statements of others by attacking them.That is not debating Scott. If you are still angry about the message thread, let's forget about that Scott and move on. It's a brand new day.
     
  20. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plagarism is plagarism, and it is dishonest no matter what part of the nation you're in. Lying about being "very familiar the Aramaic and Hebrew" is wrong as well.

    I've put up many throughout the boards, regarding both Greek and Hebrew. I have had education and practice in both. It is extraordinarily clear that you have not, and yet you resort to plagarism and lying instead of admitting that you are not actually "very familiar with Aramaic and Hebrew."

    I'm not angry about the Message thread at all. The fact is, though, it's a brand new day, but you're up to your same old tricks. Admit that you have been lying about your "familiar[ity] with Aramaic and Hebrew," and then we can move on. Admit that you sometimes take other people's work and post them (implicitly) as your own, then we can move on. Until you do that, why bother?
     

Share This Page

Loading...