Trusting the Bible

[savagewind]

If God's kingdom is for life not destruction then Daniel 2:44 is being understood incorrectly and is being taught incorrectly.

Also, how is it that anyone can call the messiah "The Prince of Peace" if what God is setting up is for destroying anything?

 

[savagewind]

Heaven does not need a kingdom to destroy anything.

And it came to pass that night, that an angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty-five thousand. And when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead bodies. 2 Kings 19:35

 

[Tumah]

If God's kingdom is for life not destruction then Daniel 2:44 is being understood incorrectly and is being taught incorrectly.

Also, how is it that anyone can call the messiah "The Prince of Peace" if what God is setting up is for destroying anything?

Heaven does not need a kingdom to destroy anything.

And it came to pass that night, that an angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty-five thousand. And when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead bodies. 2 Kings 19:35

I'm only telling you what the verse actually, literally, says. If you have a problem with what it says, ask the priest/pastor/whomever who provided you with those notions in the first place.
Also, I'm only assuming that you were directing these posts to me as you didn't actually quote me in them. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me. If I'm not wrong, I'd appreciate if you used the quote feature in the future because I don't normally comb threads for posts that may or may not be directed at me.

 

[savagewind]

I'm only telling you what the verse actually, literally, says. If you have a problem with what it says, ask the priest/pastor/whomever who provided you with those notions in the first place.
Also, I'm only assuming that you were directing these posts to me as you didn't actually quote me in them. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me. If I'm not wrong, I'd appreciate if you used the quote feature in the future because I don't normally comb threads for posts that may or may not be directed at me.

Thank you. I think I have proved it might have literally said that it is God's kingdom that would be broken and consumed. ONE small word makes it say what the Bible has it saying. One word.

Isaiah 53:10 9His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.11As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many

 

[savagewind]

The Bible is chock-full of cross references. I might find hundreds of scriptures which prove it will be God's Kingdom that is crushed and consumed by the nations. Also history proves it.

Does history prove that God's kingdom was what destroyed those kings? Does any other scripture prove that what the God of Heaven sets up is for destroying the competition?

 

[savagewind]

Where is God's Kingdom now? It isn't. Is it? But it exists always. Daniel 2:44

 

[Tumah]

Thank you. I think I have proved it might have literally said that it is God's kingdom that would be broken and consumed. ONE small word makes it say what the Bible has it saying. One word.

Isaiah 53:10 9His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.11As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many

It looks like you are saying that the Bible should be saying that it is the kingdom that will be crushed and annihilated?
It would take changes in at least two of the Aramaic words in order to get that translation.
Not sure what the verse in Isaiah talking about Israel during the exile has to do with the kingdom during the redemption. You totally lost me on that one.

 

[savagewind]

It looks like you are saying that the Bible should be saying that it is the kingdom that will be crushed and annihilated?
It would take changes in at least two of the Aramaic words in order to get that translation.
Not sure what the verse in Isaiah talking about Israel during the exile has to do with the kingdom during the redemption. You totally lost me on that one.

It is where it says God is pleased to put his own "to grief", like Daniel says The Kingdom will be consumed by the nations.

Which two words? I say one might be a scribal error. The other is an error in understanding or interpretation imo.

and in the days
of
kings
these
shall set up
the God
of heaven
a kingdom
that
for ever
shall
be destroyed
the kingdom
people
to other
shall
be left
it shall break in pieces Strong's 1855*
and consume
to all
these
kingdoms
it
shall stand (or arise)
forever

*1855 possibly "be broken"?

 

[savagewind]

Also "People to other shall be left " might mean the people for the kingdom will [seem to] be alone. This is true.

Strong's Hebrew: 7662. שְׁבַק (shebaq) -- to leave, let alone

 

[Tumah]

It is where it says God is pleased to put his own "to grief", like Daniel says The Kingdom will be consumed by the nations.

Which two words? I say one might be a scribal error. The other is an error in understanding or interpretation imo.

and in the days
of
kings
these
shall set up
the God
of heaven
a kingdom
that
for ever
shall
be destroyed
the kingdom
people
to other
shall
be left
it shall break in pieces Strong's 1855*
and consume
to all
these
kingdoms
it
shall stand (or arise)
forever

*1855 possibly "be broken"?

The two words "it shall break in pieces" and "and it shall consume"
In Aramaic "תדק" and "ותסיף" respectively.
To say what you want it to say, they are both missing an additional letter, "ת" to make them passive.

 

[Tumah]

Also "People to other shall be left " might mean the people for the kingdom will [seem to] be alone. This is true.

Strong's Hebrew: 7662. שְׁבַק (shebaq) -- to leave, let alone

When Strong is saying "let alone" it means as in "to leave someone alone". Its not coming from a root related to "alone", but to "leaving"

 

[savagewind]

When Strong is saying "let alone" it means as in "to leave someone alone". Its not coming from a root related to "alone", but to "leaving"

That is right. The people for God's kingdom do not have a kingdom. We have been left alone. The kingdom of God always seems to be "leaving".

We are not really alone, but it seems like it. Also, it takes a lot of honest hard work to be aware of God's kingdom which is "never far off". It is in our midst but very hard to see. Why? Because the words are misleading.

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. Acts 17:27

 

[savagewind]

The two words "it shall break in pieces" and "and it shall consume"
In Aramaic "תדק" and "ותסיף" respectively.
To say what you want it to say, they are both missing an additional letter, "ת" to make them passive.

Which would be quite easy to change and to hide the change. I think.

 

[jojom]

If something seems inaccurate, that points to a deficiency in the reader's comprehension, not in the Books.

Taking Proverbs 18:24

KJV
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

NASB
A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.​

we know that both can't be accurate, which means at least one of them is not right, all of which has nothing to do with a reader's comprehension.

 

[leibowde84]

If something seems inaccurate, that points to a deficiency in the reader's comprehension, not in the Books.

Why do you think this? It seems more likely that any book written by men thousands of years ago with far less understanding of the natural world and was translated multiple times throughout history by many different people might be inaccurate in certain specifics.

 

[savagewind]

Taking Proverbs 18:24

KJV
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

NASB
A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.​

we know that both can't be accurate, which means at least one of them is not right, all of which has nothing to do with a reader's comprehension.

New International Version
One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
New Living Translation
There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.
English Standard Version
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother
New American Standard Bible
A man of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
King James Bible
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friendthat sticketh closer than a brother.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
A man with many friends may be harmed, but there is a friend who stays closer than a brother
International Standard Version
A man with many friends can still be ruined, but a true friend sticks closer than a brother.
NET Bible
A person who has friends may be harmed by them, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
There are friends who are friends, and there is a friend that is closer than a brother.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Friends can destroy one another, but a loving friend can stick closer than family.
Jubilee Bible 2000
The man that has friends must show himself to be a friend, and there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.
King James 2000 Bible
A man that has friends must show himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.
American King James Version
A man that has friends must show himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.
American Standard Version
He that maketh many friends doeth it to his own destruction; But there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Douay-Rheims Bible
A man amiable in society, shall be more friendly than a brother.
Darby Bible Translation
A man of [many] friends will come to ruin but there is a friend [that] sticketh closer than a brother.
English Revised Version
He that maketh many friends doeth it to his own destruction: but there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Webster's Bible Translation
A man that hath friends must show himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
World English Bible
A man of many companions may be ruined, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
Young's Literal Translation
A man with friends is to show himself friendly, And there is a lover adhering more than a brother!
NWT
24 There are companions ready to crush one another,+But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.+

Strong's Hebrew: 7489. רָעַע (ra'a') -- afflict

afflict

A primitive root; properly, to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces); figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing, i.e. Bad (physically, socially or morally) -- afflict, associate selves (by mistake for ra'ah), break (down, in pieces), + displease, (be, bring, do) evil (doer, entreat, man), show self friendly (by mistake for ra'ah), do harm, (do) hurt, (behave self, deal) ill, X indeed, do mischief, punish, still, vex, (do) wicked (doer, -ly), be (deal, do) worse.

Str Translit Hebrew English Morph
376 [e] ’îš אִ֣ישׁ A man Noun
7453 [e] rê-‘îm רֵ֭עִים [who has] friends Noun
7489 [e] lə-hiṯ-rō-‘ê-a‘; לְהִתְרֹעֵ֑עַ must show himself friendly Verb
3426 [e] wə-yêš וְיֵ֥שׁ and there is Subst
157 [e] ’ō-hêḇ, אֹ֝הֵ֗ב a friend Verb
1695 [e] dā-ḇêq דָּבֵ֥ק [that] sticks closer Adj
251 [e] mê-’āḥ. מֵאָֽח׃ than a brother Noun

Odd! #157 is a verb* translated friend, a noun.

*Strong's Hebrew: 157. אָהַב (aheb) -- to love

 

[savagewind]

Man friends ruin shall love clings brother. Literal translation.

 

[Tumah]

That is right. The people for God's kingdom do not have a kingdom. We have been left alone. The kingdom of God always seems to be "leaving".

We are not really alone, but it seems like it. Also, it takes a lot of honest hard work to be aware of God's kingdom which is "never far off". It is in our midst but very hard to see. Why? Because the words are misleading.

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. Acts 17:27

O...k?

Which would be quite easy to change and to hide the change. I think.

So, basically what you're saying is, if the Bible doesn't fit your preconceived notions, its because of a mistake in the Bible, not a mistake in your notions?

 

[savagewind]

A man may ruin friendships but love will cling to a brother.

Ruin = break

Love = unbreakable

A brother being born of the same parent is always a brother.

Love your friends they will become your brothers.

 

[savagewind]

O...k?


So, basically what you're saying is, if the Bible doesn't fit your preconceived notions, its because of a mistake in the Bible, not a mistake in your notions?

No. I say if it doesn't match anything else in scripture (or history) it is wrong. Not me. I do not have any preconceived notions. Also, I do not have a human leader like you say, "ask him".