VS WORTH KNOWING - Page 7/7

@ purest1 - 31.03.12 - 09:33am
The renditions 'a god' or 'a son of the gods' are more accurate to be attributed to the words of a Heathen Emperor. Dont take my word for it, read an English translation of the Tanakh/Jewish Bible and see what I mean.

Correct purest. The NWT renders the verse ''a son of the gods'' * +

way2go 31.03.12 - 10:13am

@ purest1 - 31.03.12 - 10:02am
James and others before and after him had an agenda to push, the trinity. They are guilty not only of intentional mistranslation but of outright manufacture of non-existent texts. For instance the 'trinitarian' text of 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV is absent from any man*scripts before the 14th century and this embarrassing discovery has moved contemporary translators to remove it from their versions. The KJV retains it despite. Why?

Yep * +

way2go 31.03.12 - 10:14am
And the KJV is usually the version that others use to try prove the Bible is wrong or 'corrupted'. * +

mab21 31.03.12 - 10:22am
reading

* +

dbh 31.03.12 - 12:03pm

@ purest1 - 31.03.12 - 09:31am
Unfortunately this is Christian bias which translates the Aramaic phrase as 'The son of God'. The original Aramaic is 'Bar Elahin' or 'a son of the gods'. Even without going into the text behind the phrase, a little logic dictates that pagan Nebuchadnezzar had no concept of ''THE son of God''. Why, The Hebrews themselves didn't, and only in the christian era did the concept as referring to a specificdivine being come into existence. The renditions 'a god' or 'a son of the gods' ar

are you saying nebucchadnezar thought there was no higher God than his gods * +

dbh 31.03.12 - 12:05pm

@ way2go - 31.03.12 - 09:36am
Some have been added dbh like Matt. 18:11,which isn't in earliest mss. But agree about adding or taking away from. 1 john 5:7 a classic example in the KJV