-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
KJV - Good translation?
- Thread starter Aqualung
- Start date
- Status
FFH
Veteran Member
Deut you must have a version of Psalms that is incorrect and is not the original text. Jesus himself said that the only books of the Bible, written in their original form, that would survive intact, would be "The Law" or the first 5 books of the Old Testament. We cannot be sure that the version of Psalms that you posses is accurate. It may have been handed down from generation to generation and along the line it was altered to fit the beliefs of the ones supposedly transcribing it. It is an invalid interpretaion or transcription of Psalms 22: 16.
It seems we Christians or those that believe in Christ have a much much much more accurate translation of the ORIGINAL text than you posses.
Of course this would make sense that someone that did not believe in Christ would transcribe it incorrectly. You do not hold a valid form of Psalms 22: 16. it is not valid. We are correct in our translations and you are wrong.
It seems we Christians or those that believe in Christ have a much much much more accurate translation of the ORIGINAL text than you posses.
Of course this would make sense that someone that did not believe in Christ would transcribe it incorrectly. You do not hold a valid form of Psalms 22: 16. it is not valid. We are correct in our translations and you are wrong.
FFH
Veteran Member
The word "Pierced" in question would have been pulled from your original text so that when the prophecy was fulfilled, people like you could say "look it doesn't say that in the (supposedly) original text". This word "Pierced" was obviously taken out of your text to suit your idea that Jesus Christ did not come to earth and suffer and die for our sins.
They looked upon him whom they pierced.
Zechariah 12: 10
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me who they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
John 19: 37
"And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
When will you, Deut, accept your Messiah.
He died for all those that would believe in Him as the Messiah. He is our Savior and Redeemer. He died for the sins of the world.
They looked upon him whom they pierced.
Zechariah 12: 10
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me who they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
John 19: 37
"And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
When will you, Deut, accept your Messiah.
He died for all those that would believe in Him as the Messiah. He is our Savior and Redeemer. He died for the sins of the world.
FFH
Veteran Member
Looks like there is more than one version of Christian English translated scripture, including the King James Version and the Joseph Smith translation or "Inspired Version" of scripure, that still kept the word PIERCED. Not to mention that the KJV completely, exactly and correctly translated Psalms 22: 16, according to Joseph Smith and his translation or "Inspired Version" of the Bible.
Hmmmm all the Christian English translations kept the word pierced, THE most important word in Psalms 22: 16, and you, Deut, who do not claim to be a Christian, is saying that it is wrong. I wonder why that is? Maybe because we actually believe that Jesus Christ's hands and feet were pierced and after he had died on the cross they pierced his side, just to prove to the world that he actually died, so that when He was resurrected no one could say, "Maybe he really was not dead, but just unconscious, and he really wasn't resurrected from the dead, but just regained consciousness, and walked out of the tomb, with someone helping him to move the enormous stone".
After they had pierce Jesus Christ's hands and feet and he had suffered and died on the cross, they pierced His side, and his body then spilled out water and blood, proving that his blood had been shed. Truly Jesus Christ shed his blood for us.
Hmmmm all the Christian English translations kept the word pierced, THE most important word in Psalms 22: 16, and you, Deut, who do not claim to be a Christian, is saying that it is wrong. I wonder why that is? Maybe because we actually believe that Jesus Christ's hands and feet were pierced and after he had died on the cross they pierced his side, just to prove to the world that he actually died, so that when He was resurrected no one could say, "Maybe he really was not dead, but just unconscious, and he really wasn't resurrected from the dead, but just regained consciousness, and walked out of the tomb, with someone helping him to move the enormous stone".
After they had pierce Jesus Christ's hands and feet and he had suffered and died on the cross, they pierced His side, and his body then spilled out water and blood, proving that his blood had been shed. Truly Jesus Christ shed his blood for us.
From bible.orgFFH said:
Psalms 22:16
Hmmmm, perhaps you have a good deal to learn before you deign to instruct and/or chastise others. Parenthetically, Yes, wild dogs surround me
a gang of evil men crowd around me;
like a lion they pin my hands and feet. [38]
notes: 38tna gang of evil men crowd around me;
like a lion they pin my hands and feet. [38]
Heb like a lion, my hands and my feet. This reading is often emended because it is grammatically awkward, but perhaps its awkwardness is by rhetorical design. Its broken syntax may be intended to convey the panic and terror felt by the psalmist. The psalmist may envision a lion pinning the hands and feet of its victim to the ground with its paws (a scene depicted in ancient Near Eastern art), or a lion biting the hands and feet. The line has been traditionally translated, they pierce my hands and feet, and then taken as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. Though Jesus does appropriate the language of this psalm while on the cross (compare v. 1 with Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34), the NT does not cite this verse in describing the death of Jesus. (It does refer to vv. 7-8 and 18, however. See Matt 27:35, 39, 43; Mark 15:24, 29; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24.) If one were to insist on an emendation of כָּאֲרִי (kaariy, like a lion) to a verb, the most likely verbal root would be כָּרָה (karah, dig; see the LXX). In this context this verb could refer to the gnawing and tearing of wild dogs (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). The ancient Greek version produced by Symmachus reads bind here, perhaps understanding a verbal root כרך, which is attested in later Hebrew and Aramaic and means to encircle, entwine, embrace (see HALOT 497-98 s.v. כרך and Jastrow. Neither one of these proposed verbs can yield a meaning bore, pierce.
- the fact that most Christian translations would opt for a self-serving rendering of Psalms 22:16 is underwhelming
- despite the fact that there is no evidence of the Romans ever piercing the hands and feet of those crucified.
FFH
Veteran Member
According to Joseph Smith this chapter and verse is wrong. Chapter 11: 7 will not match up with the original text, and the translation is also incorrect.Deut 13:1 said:
According to Joseph Smith, KJV of Genesis 11: 7 is really part of Genesis 11: 5, the second half of that verse. It reads much differently. The King James version is messed up on this one. A lot of Genesis is missing and the chapter and verses are wrong compared to the KJV. This is a valid point and could make the KJV seem messed up. I agree that Genesis is messed up the worst. But the rest of the Bible seems to be pretty much intact.
I will quote KJV Genesis 11: 5-8 next to JST Genesis 11: 4-5 (which is a true and correct translation along with the correct chapter and verse)
JST Genesis 11: 4
4- And the Lord came down, beholding the city and the tower, which the children of men were building.
The corresponding verse in KJV Genesis 11: 5 (notice the verse is different)
5- And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
It goes on.
JST Genesis 11: 5
5- And the Lord said, Behold the people are the same, and they all have the same language; and the tower they began to buld, and now, nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined, except I, the Lord, confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So I, the Lord, will scatter them abroad from thence, upon all the face of the land, and unto every quarter of the earth.
The corresponding verse in KJV Genesis 11: 6-8
6- And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language, and this they began to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7= Go to, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8- So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth.
The verses are all messed up in Genesis and will not correspond with the original Hebrew text. This is what Joseph Smith discovered when he was inspired to record it correctly. The verses are correct only in the Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version" of the Bible, in Genesis. SOME of the verses match up to the KJV, but NOT COMPLETELY until Genesis 25, this is when the KJV's verses match up again and should match the Hebrew text, or the original writings of Genesis in their original language.
FFH
Veteran Member
The KJV of Psalms 22: 16 is correctly translated from the original text. Your translation is incorrect. Your version only suits you and your disbelief in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ the Messiah. His hands and his feet were both nailed to the cross, NOT PINNED OR TIED.Jayhawker Soule said:
FFH
Veteran Member
How do you know that it is the original unadulterated Hebrew version of the Psalms? How do you know that over the years the Hebrew wasn't transcribed wrong? How do you know it is exactly the same as the original Hebrew text? It could have some errors in it. It is very possible since so much time has passed since it was recorded. There is no assurance that it remained intact all of these years. Jesus Christ never mentioned that the Psalms would remain untouched or unaltered by human hands.Deut 13:1 said:
Deut 13:1
Well-Known Member
Had you bothered to read what I posted before...FFH said:
I will never accept a lier. Period. Nor will I ever purposely mistranslate a verse to claim it talks about a lier.FFH said:
He died because he deserved to die. End of story. He claimed to be G-d, which is clearly rebuked in Judaism. He knew the penalty for such a claim, he was tried and found guilty, then punished by the Romans. Justice worked well.FFH said:
If you had any knowledge of the bible, you would know Bar Kochba was MUCH closer to fullfilling the role of Moshiach then Mr. J was.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
***ADMIN POST***
Thread closed for review.
Cool down, gentlemen.
Thread closed for review.
Cool down, gentlemen.
- Status