Twisted translations

[Traveler]

Ok this may be of interest to you all. I have just been in debate on another thread that the Apostle Paul did not engage in the old ritual of blood sacrifice. How could he as they were no longer acceptable to God.

This is the verse that he used to prove his point

.

Acts 21:

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, (D)purifying himself along with them, (E)went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

(NAS trans)

In context--Paul was being challenged that he did not observe the laws as he did not preach circumcision to the gentiles. Paul purchased the (animal) sacrifices for four men, went through the purification ritual required in order to slaughter the animals and Paul performed the ceremony himself.

Now this NAS translation seems to be a problem. In no way does the scriptures say anything like this. Even the cleaning rituals for his own person before entering the temple area are turned around to make it look like they are required for some sacrificial animal.

Below is what the KJV says the verse is supposed to read

Act 21:26 Then taking the men on the next day, being purified with them, Paul went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the purification, until an offering should be offered for each of them

I checked out the word offering and this is what it actually means.

G4376
προσφορά
prosphora
pros-for-ah'
From G4374; presentation; concretely an oblation (bloodless) or sacrifice: - offering (up).

The warning is that there is something horribly wrong with this NAS translation. I have never come across anything as twisted as this and it should be made known. If anyone knows where this abomination of a translation is coming from, please let me know.

[Traveler]

You can just walk into the synagogue but the temple is something different. You purify yourself first.

You do not do the sacrifice, the Levite priesthood has to do it. And that only at the yearly atonement.

The offering in this case was probably alms as in mammon. (cash) Under the circumstances I doubt that he was offering the first fruits of any crops.

In any event the verse before was talking against the offering of blood sacrifices.

[acacia]

Traveler...
Maybe you would like to edit Wiki after you track down the other bible translators and give them hell.

References to animal sacrifice appear in the New Testament, such as the parents of Jesus sacrificing two doves (Luke 2:24) and the Apostle Paul performing a Nazirite vow even after the death of Christ (Acts 21:23-26).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice

[acacia]

Just thought I would quote this so you don't go back and retract your statement like you did on the other post.

Ok this may be of interest to you all. I have just been in debate on another thread that the Apostle Paul did not engage in the old ritual of blood sacrifice. How could he as they were no longer acceptable to God.

This is the verse that he used to prove his point

.
Quote:
Acts 21:

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, (D)purifying himself along with them, (E)went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

(NAS trans)

In context--Paul was being challenged that he did not observe the laws as he did not preach circumcision to the gentiles. Paul purchased the (animal) sacrifices for four men, went through the purification ritual required in order to slaughter the animals and Paul performed the ceremony himself.

Now this NAS translation seems to be a problem. In no way does the scriptures say anything like this. Even the cleaning rituals for his own person before entering the temple area are turned around to make it look like they are required for some sacrificial animal.



Below is what the KJV says the verse is supposed to read


Quote:
Act 21:26 Then taking the men on the next day, being purified with them, Paul went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the purification, until an offering should be offered for each of them


The warning is that there is something horribly wrong with this NAS translation. I have never come across anything as twisted as this and it should be made known. If anyone knows where this abomination of a translation is coming from, please let me know.

I especially thought this was amusing:

"The warning is that there is something horribly wrong with this NAS translation. I have never come across anything as twisted as this and it should be made known."


Rather than admit you have seen things in a new light that have not been mentioned by your religious leaders because they are 'unfavorable' to current teachings....rather than concede that you have been ignorant of this fact...you now challenge all the bible translations as being wrong.

The only way you can make god fit your own mold is to start a new religion like so many others have done.

Sounds like you want to make god your puppet. He can only say or do what you think he should.

Maybe you should go have a beer with Jake 69.

[Goldmoon]

Another thing to watch out for is "Out of context" parts of scripture.

Often people who are against Jesus or walk contrary to God's ways will try to decieve by leaving out certain parts of verses.

They will take it "Out of Context" by saying just part of the verse, then leaving out the other half of the verse, for their own satisfaction.

Most of the time, people will listen to what they hear, so they will just go along with whatever the deciever says rather than looking it up for themselves.

The best bet is to check out the words of Jesus, His truth rings clear time and again. (Matthew 24, Luke 21, etc...)

[Traveler]

Just thought I would quote this so you don't go back and retract your statement like you did on the other post.


.

That has never happened

That statement is a lie but by making it you cast doubt.

When it comes to twists and deceptions you are the forums master.

Nothing nice ever comes out of you!

[Cartesiantheater]

This is a good point. There are some striking differences in the various translations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Caution is needed to remain objective to the true meaning of the original authors.




Here is another example:

The end of Isaiah 53:8

for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

My people's sin had struck them

If the Christians used THAT translation, they'd have lost one of the most important "prophesies" about Christ.

So it is clear how very important translations are. It is ALSO clear how very careful we must be in reading ANY translation, because some of the languages our translations come from don't even have the same exact sort of words in the grammatical contexts we do. Which lead to many potential translation ambiguities.





From
http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2008...-verses-7.html

[acacia]

This important book is a survey and analysis of animal sacrifice in Greek polytheism, Judaism, and Christianity, from 100 BC to AD 200, in the eastern Mediterranean. It is part of a recent resurgence of studies on sacrifice in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and its relationship to Judaism and Christianity.1 The author is motivated by "the fact that Christianity is known as a religion with no altars for slaughter, in combination with the historical fact that early Christians came from religious environments where animal sacrifice was practiced"

Rather than assuming a decline in Greek animal sacrifice in the Roman period, a frequent assertion made popular especially by the influential scholar M.P. Nilsson, Petropolou demonstrates its continued significance during the first two centuries of the development of Christianity. In this context, she then explores Hellenistic Jewish, early Rabbinic, and early Christian attitudes to animal sacrifice.

In Chapter Six, "Christians and Animal Sacrifice in the Period up to AD 200," surveys early Christian attitudes toward sacrifice.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-05-60.html



Read what some of the experts and serious scholars have to say about it.

Apparently Christian animal sacrifices did not end until sometime in the second century.

[Traveler]

You need to be careful who you lable expert.

The writings of the new testament forbid partaking in animal sacrifice or eating of food offered to idols.

Yes the practice may have been going on but it was not done by the Christians. The Christians were just as unpopular then as they are now. They were just as out of step then as now. Why do you think that they were being fed to the Lions.

But at least now we all know that what you present as experts are nothing of the sort.

[RhymnRzn]

Ok this may be of interest to you all. I have just been in debate on another thread that the Apostle Paul did not engage in the old ritual of blood sacrifice. How could he as they were no longer acceptable to God.
This is the verse that he used to prove his point.
Now this NAS translation seems to be a problem. In no way does the scriptures say anything like this. Even the cleaning rituals for his own person before entering the temple area are turned around to make it look like they are required for some sacrificial animal.
Below is what the KJV says the verse is supposed to read
I checked out the word offering and this is what it actually means.
G4376
προσφορά
prosphora
pros-for-ah'
From G4374; presentation; concretely an oblation (bloodless) or sacrifice: - offering (up).
The warning is that there is something horribly wrong with this NAS translation. I have never come across anything as twisted as this and it should be made known. If anyone knows where this abomination of a translation is coming from, please let me know.

I would argue that anything in our tongue post-King James Version is an abomination of a translation. BTW - I think the word offering obviously included the offering of certain animals, which must have been carried out more commonly when the temple at Jerusalem was still intact.

This is a good point. There are some striking differences in the various translations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Caution is needed to remain objective to the true meaning of the original authors.
Here is another example:
The end of Isaiah 53:8
If the Christians used THAT translation, they'd have lost one of the most important "prophesies" about Christ.
So it is clear how very important translations are. It is ALSO clear how very careful we must be in reading ANY translation, because some of the languages our translations come from don't even have the same exact sort of words in the grammatical contexts we do. Which lead to many potential translation ambiguities.
From
http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2008...-verses-7.html

No chance at all, that for the certainty of all those things that God has made certain, that the King James Version is a basic (non-erratic) translation of the original Greek and Hebrew, made in the care of not altering the words? If what you say is true, then the translators explanation must be false, or some ignorant boast. The problem is how many people find fault where there is none. You cannot convince me that God throughout the ages has not maintained his testimonies, as though his people are in anything you say deceived, or are really under the persuasion of some confusion he did not authorize. Yes, the tradition of men can corrupt, but their hope is to make the concrete word of God to none effect, and to replace the word of God with their own.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-05-60.html
Read what some of the experts and serious scholars have to say about it.
Apparently Christian animal sacrifices did not end until sometime in the second century.

^ but the prophets had been prophesying a long time that the house of Israel would transgress the covenant, and set it at naught, so there were various kings in Israel under whom the altars of Baal prospered, and others who did not cut down the high places and groves, and graven images. For hundreds of years the prophets hazarded their lives to prepare the way for the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ, indicating that the blood of beasts would no longer be accepted to make atonement (so that man is not made to bear his iniquity, or even cut off from his people). Most of the early Church had already been keeping the prophets, free from under the law to the grace of God (being righteous, not needing forgiveness for transgression of the law, nor requiring circumcision to be saved), being the children of the prophets they anticipated the Messiah, many of whom were as scattered sheep in Pharisee/Sadducee/tetrarchal ruled land of Israel, and in the lands of the Gentiles: these were the first to enact the New Testament/Covenant, receiving John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles with a ready mind. These same people testified against the persistent Nicolaitans and the synagogue of Satan, who were false Christians and Jews (doing sacrifices and other observances not given), as they always reasoned against and persecuted the prophets, even before Christ came, and thus were not of God, but the Devil.

So, why do you like to say there was "Christian animal sacrifices", or that Paul approved or gave place to such acts (which were interrupted before they were even carried out), seeing that clearly he was there to testify of Jesus Christ, and to warn them to flee the wrath to come?

[acacia]

There have been two basic theologies in human history: the theology of sacrifice which says the gods are pleased by the destruction of innocent persons, and moral truth which says concern for the victims is the path to life.

Christ corrected the satanic theology of sacrifice only to have Paul reinstitute it as the supposed purpose of Christianity.

The demons would reward people for murdering their children and offering their blood. Paul's theology describes God as having the same characteristics. It's nothing but demonology, not what Christ taught.

Christ described the nature of sin and the conditions required to overcome it. People must learn to do things for victims of injustice as a method of correcting the reactions in their minds. A lot of knowledge is required. For that reason, Christ taught the basic principles of morality, and he said people are supposed to try to understand what he taught (Mat 15:10)(Mark 4:13, 7:14, 8:21)(Luke 24:45)(John 8:43).

In combating the external forces of sin, Christ taught that truth is the answer (John 8:32). The explanation is that sin cannot exist in the light of truth, as difficult as it is to develop adequate truth.

Of course, the fraud that satan teaches is the opposite. It says that sin is so easy to fix that any number of gimmicks will do it; and one over-all gimmick took care of sin on the cross.

If the basic procedure were to throw flowers in the mud, most persons would say something fishy is going on. What if the procedure were to kill people? What if it required killing your friends, particularly your children? What if it required offering their blood to God? That is what satan taught people for religion throughout human history. All sin is sacrificing the innocent for the benefit of the guitly.

When archeologists study the Aztecs and similar cultures of ancient America, they find that sacrificing children was the focus of their religion. The primitives would also sacrifice adults and warriors. There were gods who demanded that result as a payment for success or protection.

The Theological Error of Sacrificing
http://nov55.com/rel/err.html

[Goldmoon]

I have a 1516 version of the bible, a direct english translation from the earliest scriptures, and it is nearly identical to the King James Version.

Its amazing to see how they spelled some of the words back then. Really spelled how they sound.

[acacia]

I have a 1516 version of the bible, a direct english translation from the earliest scriptures, and it is nearly identical to the King James Version.

Its amazing to see how they spelled some of the words back then. Really spelled how they sound.

"a direct english translation from the earliest scriptures"


what language are the earliest scriptures, Goldmoon?

And which language was translated directly to English without an interim of being interpreted in any other language?

[acacia]

The fact that Paul does bring blood sacrifices COMMANDED BY THE LAW testifies to him and should to us that the Law had not passed away after Yeshua's death as a pattern for life for believers in Yeshua and his message as we so often have been told. But more than that it demonstrates two things:

1. That Paul evidently did not think that Yeshua's death was a sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
2. That Paul still felt the need to obey the Law after the death of Yeshua, even laws concerning sin offerings as an atonement for sin.

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul...sacrifices.htm




So, will you all go for it when the churches begin to teach that animal sacrifice should be continued?


Will you continue to follow Paul and his teachings?




Where are you Traveler? You haven't been back to answer any of these questions above.


Have you had an ephipany of some kind?

[debonnaire]

Hi Acacia and all

Just to let know that Trav is off the net for a while.
(we have been told so at another forum 10 days ago)

[acacia]

Hi Acacia and all

Just to let know that Trav is off the net for a while.
(we have been told so at another forum 10 days ago)

Very thoughtful of you to let us know, Debonnaire.

Is Traveler alright or is it a computer problem?

10 days off the net I suppose he is having serious withdrawals by now!

[debonnaire]

he did not said more than this, Acacia.

imo , i don't think he has internet problem and i think he is alright.
it must be something else (after all, he is a traveler :] )

[acacia]

he did not said more than this, Acacia.

imo , i don't think he has internet problem and i think he is alright.
it must be something else (after all, he is a traveler :] )

Maybe we should form an AO Possee.
You don't suppose "they" have him in leg irons somewhere waiting to send him to a fema camp on the next rail car, do you?

[olddragon]

Maybe we should form an AO Possee.
You don't suppose "they" have him in leg irons somewhere waiting to send him to a fema camp on the next rail car, do you?

Maybe deporting him back to Africa????

[acacia]

Maybe deporting him back to Africa????

Isn't he originally from South Africa and now living in Canada?

Do you suppose he has swine flu?

Or has he been raptured?

I am concerned now. He has been gone too long.

I have no one to spar with.

[TC]

Actually he's from Zimbabwe.

And there are some vary different translations from the original Greek/Hebrew to KJV English, ( see CTs post) and even more so with the NAS and the first revised edition. ( some call it the "The standard reviled perversion) So I think Trav has a good point with his thread, ( at least what I have read of the NAS)

[Goldmoon]

He's back now.