A forum to discuss Bible Translations

The discussion continues

Anyone can post here
User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:32 pm

Engaging in a discussion on a image posted on Facebook, I ended up getting 'defriended' by two people by the end of it. Unfortunately, Facebook really isn't the best place for discussions to take place (mainly due to the annoyance of comments and having to click on "see more", and the fact that you can only remove - not edit - your comment once it's been posted), so the discussion should really continue in an open-forum format, that anyone can view.

With that in mind, this is the image that was posted:

Image

Then this was the discussion that followed (People's names have been changed to keep the commentators anonymous (except me and CW - most people who read this forum know who he and I are :)). Unfortunately it hasn't copied well, so my apologies for some missing numbers - but you can blame facebook for that :)

----Start----

Δυναμις: I'm sorry you think Yahweh's truths are unpleasant. I find them to be quite the opposite.

Τ: The idea of the pic is that all the people in the other line find them unpleasant and choose religion over relationship. I find Yah's truths to be the most fantastic thing in this world.. the path is extremely narrow and exacting and few will find it.. so the main point is that Yah's truth is and always has been extremely unpopular

Δυναμις: Agreed, but what does Paul have to do with religion? I think maybe you've got him confused with Constantine or Marcion. Blaming Paul for the state of the ekklesia today is like blaming Martin Luther King for the stuff Jeremiah Wright says.

Τ: It is because of Paul's writings that the vast majority of Christians hold certain views which are not in line with Scripture. Among those views are:

That Yahowsha' started a new religion and none of that stuff in the OT matters anymore.

in fact, why bother, if your a new Christian, just start in the NT and ignore most of that Jewish stuff (almost all of my christian friends, except you and a couple others, hold this view because people see Paul's writings as saying that the Towrah is no longer relevant and a burden).

the sinner's prayer of grace.. say a quick prayer and then go back to doing whatever you want because now your saved forever.. but the fact is without the Towrah it is impossible to know Yah.. and if one doesn't know Yah, He doesn't know them.

I see it this way.. if one takes Paul's writings at face value, they will be led away from Yah.

If one tries to make sense and rationalize Paul's writings and say he didn't mean this, he meant that, etc etc then that is time I could have been spending learning Towrah - so I just ignore his writings, because there is enough there to show me that I should stay away.

& I think Yahowsha warned us about Paul because he knew a huge number of people would be led down the wrong path

Τ: “And Yahushua (ΙΣ) responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – used discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo, separate, and krino, to separate, choosing right from wrong), telling (eupen) them (autos), ‘Pay attention and be perceptive (blepete – look closely and watch out, be careful and discerning, think and understand), lest (ue) someone (tis) will cause you to wander away from the truth (planaomai umas – deceive and delude you, leading you astray).” (Matthew 24:4)

“For (gar) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus ; whereas the more recent NA reads “by means of (epi)”]) My (ego) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) exist as, belong to, or represent (eimi – I am and I stand for) the (o) Messiyah (ΧΣ – the Implement of Yah). And (kai) many (polys) will wander away from the truth (planaomai – will be deceived and deluded).’” (Matthew :) “Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) says to (eipon) you (umeis), ‘Behold (idou – indeed, suddenly now, look) here in this place (hode – in this case positioned near the speaker) the Messiyah (ΧΣ),’ or, ‘in this case here (hode),’ do not (me) think that they are trustworthy or reliable (pisteuo).’” “Because (gar) pseudo-christs (pseudochristoi – false-messiahs) and (kai) pseudo-prophets (pseudoprophetai) will stand up and arouse (egeiromai – will rise up, awaken, and stir the comatose), doing (didomi) great (megas) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events) in order to (hoste) elude and deceive (planao – causing people to stray from the path), even (kai) if it were possible (ei dynatos – if they were able), those who were chosen (eklektos – those who select and are selected, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word).” (Matthew 24:5)

But, Yahshua would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he met with Yahshua in Arabia, the ultimate Scriptural “wilderness.” Listen to God: “Look (idou – indeed, telling the listener to pay attention to this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will occur in your future). If and when (ean) therefore (oun), someone says (eiposin) to you, ‘Look, indeed (idou), He exists (estin – He is (third person, singular and thus “He exists,” and not “I exist”) in (en) the (te) wilderness (eremos – uninhabited desert),’ behold, do not (me) leave (exerchomai – go away from) your place in (en) the treasured inner room of the home (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed). You should not (me) trust him (pisteuo – think that what he has said is true).” (Matthew 24:25-26)

Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia. Once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahshua’s audience. Yahshua specifically warned His Disciples about Sha’uwl’s deceptive message—and us through them. Are you listening?

Δυναμις: Obviously, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what Paul meant to teach---and whether Yahshua intended His words as a warning against him. I find CW's contentions less than convincing.

Ωπ: I find Paul less then Family and ignore his misguided diatribes.

Τ: Understood.. you and I are on the same page about most things.. I have to say I haven't taken the time to really dive in to what Craig said about it (haven't read much of QP) because I personally want to use that time learning about what Yah wrote in TPP. That' why I don't talk that much about the Paul thing because I'd rather be talking about the Yah thing.

Ωπ: less *than even.

Ισι: Once you know the truth, you find that others believe it is unpleasant. That is the gist of the cartoon. Lies are easier to digest because they have been sugar coated. The truth then is hard to swallow because you'd have to spit all the tainted sugar out of your mind. Satan did a good job of spreading the tainted sugar! The bibles everyone seems to hold in esteem are tainted with incorrect names of our Creator, Yah. Then you have the second part of "the book" boasting on Paul's position who preaches the opposite of what Yah teaches! He makes it seem so sincere (sugar coating all the love and faith and grace) putting the focus on him and actually away from the savior, all along sweetening the stance that what he says supercedes Yah's!

Ωπ: Δυναμις, there is probably nothing I call show or tell you that you have not already see or heard regarding Paul. Forget about Craig Wynn for a second... many, many, many more people have come to see the fraud that is Paul apart from anything Craig has written or exposed, than have through his views.

Paul does not add up. Period. Simple math analogy... Yah says... divided by =
Paul comes along and says forget about that... +=

Ωπ: I *can even ;)

Ωπ: ‎*seen too... man I need to proofread my posts before I hit enter.

Τ: and as far as Craig, he set out to prove that Paul was simply misrepresented.. but that's not where the truth led.. it's not like he had some agenda against Paul.. he just followed the evidence with an open mind.. Forget about QP, you should check out ITG.. it really is a good read about Yah and the Towrah... better than Yada Yah was and will be posted soon and I have an updated copy if you wanna see it

Τ: And Δυναμις I am thankful for your books.. I read FH before the Yada Yah and it was a real eye opener for me about ten years ago or however long it was

Ριχ: We are to make a difference between what is clean and what is unclean, between what is true and what is a lie, between what is good and what is evil. Paul's teachings fall on the unclean/lie/evil side. So why even debate the matter with someone who so obviously prefers Paul's ideas to Yahowah's Word? I've got better things to do than lip-flap with my Father's enemies.

Me: I'll state it quite bluntly here: CW's "translation" of Matthew 24:5-6, 25-26 is completely and utterly wrong, and dare I say it, a fabricated version of the words to put things into the Messiah's mouth that he didn't say, therefore misrepresenting Yah's Word made flesh. Look for when I release "Questioning Paul Review - Part" where I go through all this in detail, plus some more besides. QPR Part 1 still has yet to have someone find something wrong with it, and I still await peoples comments on it - http://tinyurl.com/cuwr27c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; & http://tinyurl.com/clng6hr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ριχ: I love you, Swalchy, so I'm going to read your stuff. I have come to trust your work.

Me: Thanks Richard. Add this account to your friends, if I don't do it before you :)

Τ: As I said earlier, I won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings..

Me: CW's Hebrew isn't any better, sorry to say. Whilst I agree that studying the TPP is a much better use of people's time, I've found that most people currently mean "I'm gonna read YY or ItG", and not actually look at the Hebrew & Aramaic of the TPP. Although i know this isn't true in your case, Terry - you're lucky enough to have Logos to aid with your studies :)

Τ: thanks.. but I have checked a whole lot of verses of YY and ITG against my version of Logos, in fact there are a dozen of us who have Logos and have checked Craig's Hebrew (because we trust no one except Yah) and not one us have found any discrepancies.. he (like me) used the DSS wherever extant.. I have to say he understands Hebrew very well and I will continue to check his work and he is completely open to change it if it is wrong. It's the Hebrew 'scholars' that you have to watch out for becuase they know a whole lot about Hebrew but understand very little..

Τ: Hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I think you guys hold something against Craig because of his stance on Paul and I've heard that you call some of us 'Craig followers' when that couldn't be further from the truth.. We only seek Yahowah and if Craig or anyone else says something contrary to Yah's Words then it is Yah I will follow in every case.. never man.. you're missing out if you haven't read ITG - regardless of who wrote it because most of it is quoting Scripture, except for the commentary.. I think the truth is that people have too much invested in Paul to let him go, even when they know or suspect he was wrong.. I respect your work, Swaclhy... this is a touchy subject.. so I hope no one gets angry since it is just a discussion

Me: You got around to checking Psalm 119:127 in Chapter 3 of ItG? There is no "God" in that verse, yet ItG seems to say that it does. The same is true for 119:128. I have actually read an awful lot of ItG, mainly because I've been asked by a friend to go through the translations of the Hebrew and Greek seen in it. Unfortunately T, there are an awful lot of "Criag Followers", although that would be the wrong thing to call someone who merely reads ItG or YY. Although those who only seem to be capable of giving CW's thoughts rather than their own can really only be considered CF's.

When I ask people a question on a subject, I want to know what *they* think - not what someone else does =)

Τ: Swalch, let me check those verses.. Gimme a few days and I'll get back to ya. I understand you want to know what they/we think.. me too :) thinking, understanding and learning is what it is all about

Κυκ: This is all way over my head. You guys are in a class all your own.

Μορος: I wonder why anyone would listen to Paul when Yahoshah said very clearly anyone claiming to be with Him was a liar not to be trusted. Further Clement who was Shimown's Disciple said that good old uncle Paul threw Yacov down a flight of stairs and tried to kill him. Thirdly who do you people think Yahoshah was talking about in Rev : lastly we are told we know them by their fruits. Paul's fruits like it or not is religion. I see nowhere in scripture where anyone talks about themselves that represent Yahowah. To me you either believe Yahowah or tap dance for Paul because you cannot do both.

Μορος: You know them by their fruits.

Μορος: Let's look at what uncle Paul did after being demoted according to Clement who unlike Luke was really there: "And when matters were at that point that they would all come and be baptized, Paul and his men entered the temple: and Paul cried out: 'Oh men of Israel, why are you so easily influenced by these miserable men?' He began to excite the people and raise a tumult... and drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been done by James. Paul rebuked the priests for having listened to James, and, like a madman, began to excite the priests and people to murder James and the brethren, saying 'Do not hesitate; grab them and pull them to pieces.' Paul then, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, joined in the beating. Much blood was shed. Although James and the brethren were more numerous and more powerful they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than to kill others. Paul attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead left him."

Μορος: I realize that Marcion decided not to put Clement in his religious book.

Μορος: According to Clement here is what He said Peter had to say about uncle Paul who we all now is the foundation of Twistianity : Peter asking Paul all of this : "Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those of us who were awake?" And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, Interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am rock, the foundation of the Ekklesia, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from Yahowah, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But If you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against Yahowah, who revealed the Ma'seyah to me, and you inveight against him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, Indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow worker with us.

Μορος: My question to anyone is why would anyone listen to Paul over Clement who was Peters choice to be the next leader of the Ekklesia. Since a church and religious books do not count why read them?

Me: I know you can't see this post, Μορος, but for the benefit of those who can see my response to your posts, you are quoting from the Clementine Homieis and/or recognitions, which werent even written until at least the middle of the 3rd Century CE. It also doesn't help that the person being addressed is Simon Mangus, not Paul. Whatever version you're quoting from, it has purposely changed the names to produce something that the Clementine homilies/recognitions have no evidence of saying. The recognitions have also only come down to us in Latin, a language you've said you've detested, and yet you quote its words as if they're absolute fact? Let's not also forget the fact that Clement wasn't with Peter - the "Clement" of the Clementine homilies/recognitions is noted as Titus Flavius Clemens, the great grand nephew of Emperor Vespasian, both of whom never met Peter, never mind travelled with him like the "Clement" of the Clementine homilies/recognitions does.

Ισι: I'm simple, so here goes. Does Yah make mistakes so he sends troops in to correct himself? Yahosha said he would reappear to his disciples. He was wrong? He should have said but later he will add one? Because does not Yah/Yahosha know what he is saying? Are we not to know that when Yah speaks in Torah, which is all perfect so says Scripture, there is no time limit? So why does time change and corrections need made years down the line?

Me: ‎1 of the Messiah's adherents had killed himself by the time He had been resurrected. I also do not know where the Messiah said he had only 12 people altogether that He was particularly bothered about and that he'd reappear to again. The Messiah had many disciples that outnumbered the main ones mentioned, and He didn't actually pick out Judas' replacement personally either.

Μς: Swalchy I was reviewing the Psalms 119:127-128 and reference which I have not really gotten that far in ITG. But the inclusion of God in those two verses do not change the verse they clarify the person he is addressing. But have you brought it up to CW why he chose to render. Therefore (ken) God ('al) as such.?

Ισι: Thank you for your kind response, TWTY. I respond in kind. Matthew: "And when Yahosha had finished instructing his disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities." Matthew: "...he sat at the table with the disciples...." Matthew: But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." Matthew :. "Now the disciples went to Galilee...." John: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter said to him, 'Yahosha, where are you going?' Yahosha answered, 'Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward..." John: "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who keeps my instructions and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and MANIFEST MYSELF TO HIM...." John: Now Thomas, one of the 12, called the Twin, was not with them when Yahosha came, so the other disciples told him, "We have seen Yahosha...." John "After this, Yahosha revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias...." He told just those disciples they would deny him three times upon his appearance. In John, he is speaking to those disciples. John: "These things I have spΔυναμις to you while I am still with you." Speaking to "these" disciples, John: says, "His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly,not in any figure! Now we know that you know all things and need none to question you." "John: "I have manifested they name to the men whom though gavest me out of the world. Thine they were and thou gavest them to me and they have kept they word." John: forward speaks of those disciples whom had been with him since Passover. He prays for "them," not of the world but "for whom thou hast given me..." He asks the Father to "keep them in thy name..., that they may be one. And as he had said, he appeared to them at the Sea of Galilee. Please tell me where I've messed up regarding Yah/Yahosha not making mistakes.

Me: I never meant to imply that the Messiah had made a mistake - he didn't. I pointed out that he didn't reappear to the *twelve* disciples after his resurrection, as one of them had killed himself. The Messiah also never said "I shall appear to you 12 again" - He said "you" (plural), no matter whom was there, which we also know included many women. Also "The Twelve" was essentially a title given to the combined group, so when it says "Thomas, one of The Twelve" it isn't indicating that there were there - because one was dead.

@Μς I refer to our facebook chat convo where I point out an extra 5 words that Craig mistranslates in Psalm 119:127, therefore only actually getting 40% of the verse translated correctly. When he is incapable of translating a mere 10 Hebrew words correctly, don't hold out much hope of the rest being any better.

If people aren't finding things wrong with CW's translation, then I'm afraid you're either not looking properly, or attempting to explain them away with "Well they don't change the meaning of the verse" or "They clarify who's being addressed". If CW is allowed to criticise *other* translations for doing just that, then he shouldn't be doing the same thing as well. He is also misrepresenting what Yahweh's words are saying. There was no need to add "God" to the verse and then say he was translating the *preposition* 'al - he wasn't. He was butchering the words and saying he was translating a word that he wasn't actually translating. In my book, that's called lying

Ισι: Good morning, TWTY. Regarding Thomas, such is the reason for the commas setting off "one of...." The 12 were the "lesser commission" of disciples with him during Passover and he's speaking only to them, the (until one dies) during the verses I quoted above, and he says he will meet them after his resurrection (which occurs at the Sea of Galilee and, with the , while gathered behind closed doors) having told them earlier they, the /, would deny his appearance three times (and then proceed to spread his word except to the gentiles). Who else is he speaking of other than the then-present disciples? When speaking "of" his disciples in the verses where he is asking Yah to protect "them," I accept he is speaking of the (+) others in the then-present time who were given instructions for all nations. Where does "future" have its place when Yahosha is speaking to and of his discples? I am rather new to Yah's Truth; and when I do not know something, I ask for clarification/help/guidance, so I would appreciate your time in directing me where I error. If you are agreeing Yah/Yahosha makes no mistakes, where is the credibility of a "future" Paul." Yahosha sent the + out to the "other nations." If that was not sufficient and Yah knew it would not be sufficient, would not he have foretold, just like he's foretold everything else? I am not of the vaster knowledge as the other gentlemen posting here, and I am forming and have formed my own thoughts regarding Paul's writings in the second half of the bible. Shalom and pleasant shabat.

νικος: Saul/Paul was a Pharissee that is all you need to know..Yahushua let us know when he walked the earth what he thought of the Pharissees.

Me: How about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea? They were Pharisee's also - Joseph even more so, as he was a member of the Sanhedrin

Τ: Here is how Craig renders Ps 119:127 in ITG: “Therefore (ken) God (‘al), I genuinely and totally love (‘ahab – I have developed a close, personal, affectionate, and abiding relationship with (qal perfect)) the terms and conditions of Your relationship agreement (mitswah – Your authoritative instructions and written directions regarding Your covenant contract) more than (min) gold nuggets (zahab) and more than (min) gold coins (paz).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:127)

He used 8 of the 10 words.. the ten being: 'Al ken ahab mitswah ka min zahab wa min paz.. he missed the ka and wa but they weren't needed to convey the verse.

1.'Ken' can indeed mean therefore

2.'Al.. (aleph lamed) is 'al/‘el, which is the contracted form of ‘elowah and is Yahowah's Title - also known as God or The Almighty. It can also mean "in relation to, near, before, in proximity to, in addition to, on account of, on, upon, regarding, concerning, on behalf of, because of, for, against, opposed to"... but it can just as easily be translated 'God' or 'The Almighty'

3. ahab - love... yep that's right..ahab means "love; close, friendly, and affectionate relationship, choose to actually love"

4. Mitswah - Indeed is the relationship agreement - errantly rendered by religious people looking to control the masses as 'commandments'.
Mtswah can be defined as "terms and conditions of the binding contract, authorized directions and written instructions, authoritative instructions, written legal conditions" ... and indeed in this context 'relationship agreement' works.

5. ka - not translated by Craig here.. wasn't really needed, but means "when, just when, just as; is akin to; can be compared to, as, as with, like, the same as, similar to, consistent with, according to, accordingly"

6. min - he has 'more than'
min is defined as "from, out of, away from, part of, source of, means to, flow from, flow toward, more"

7. zahab - he has 'gold nuggets'.. yep

8. wa - he didn't used.. means "and"

9.min - more than, same as used above

10. paz - he said 'gold coins'. I don't see 'coins', I would have said 'pure gold' or 'refined gold', but gold coins doesn't change anything.

It is an acceptable translation based on the words used in the verse and their meanings according to the lexicons, wordbooks and dictionaries within Logos.

Does anyone else with Logos want to recheck this? I mean anyone who doesn't have a bone to pick with Craig and isn't looking to falsely accuse him. Use an open mind like I did.. not pro-Craig, not anti-Craig, but rather pro Yahowah.

Me: I'm sorry Τ, but I seriously contend that. 'al is not 'el. Firstly, 'al-ken is a Hebrew clause, which is a very concrete form of "Therefore" or better yet "Because of this". It doesn't mean "Therefore God" in the slightest, as that's actually rearranging the words (Ken 'al as Craig has it, which is wrong) and destroying the clause that Yahuweh intended. The 'al-ken clause is used 165 times in the Tanakh. I think Yahuweh knows what He means to say when He uses His own language. If Yahuweh wanted David to say "Therefore God" He is more than capable of doing so - He doesn't need to use a common clause that everybody would've realised in a completely different way, nor does He need to turn a preposition ('al) into a noun ('God').

'ahab however doesn't mean "I genuinely and totally love, I have a developed a close, personal, affectionate, and abiding relationship with" - that's just a flamboyant exaggeration of something that just means "love". It could be "I love, cherrish, and have affection for", but I couldn't find a single thing that could provide the source for where Craig got his translation of the word as he has it there. Could you provide the source? I'm checking mainly TWOT and BDB, the two best things on Logos for Hebrew. You could have "I actively love" due to the active sense of the verb, which isn't easy to bring across in English translations

mitswah does mean commandments - it's not just an errant translation to control the masses. When it's used 198 times in the sense of "command" or "commandments" (the difference between singular and plural), it's quite obvious as to what it means here in Psalm 119. It could also mean "ordinance, instruction, and prescription", all of which would've been the accurate and amplified translation of the word; not how CW has it.

The fifth word is actually 'attah, and it means "your". Whilst -ka is stuck on the end of mistwah, it isn't actually the word ka being used. 'attah is the second person pronoun in Hebrew, and Hebrew usually likes to stick pronouns after the noun (ie soul his; son his; daughter theirs).

The sixth word - min - according to BDB is a "prep[osition] expressing the idea of separation, hence out of, from, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not". Oddly enough, this was one of the four words CW got right both times.

zahab just means gold, not gold nuggets. In its 392 uses in the Tanakh, I can't see a single one that would require the addition of -nuggets to the word when 'gold' is more than enough.

I agree with you on paz - and that's one of the words I pointed out to Marcus, which I hope he shared with you. Oddly enough, you pointed out the two translations of paz that I did. It means either "refined" or "pure" gold - doesn't mean gold coins.

The Hebrew actually reads as follows: 'al-ken 'ahabti mistwotekah mizahab uwmipaz. What you have at the top is just the root words (although accidentally with ka instead of 'attah), which doesn't help with understanding how the words are used in the text itself. Plus if all we're going for is an "acceptable" translation, then there's essentially nothing wrong with the KJV or ESV's rendering of it.

Not surprisingly, "it's an acceptable translation" or "it doesn't change the meaning of the verse" is the same excuse Christians give when people point out flaws in their popular translations.

If you tell people you're giving them an "accurate" translation of Yahuweh's words, then you'd better do so - not make up your own translations of words that have no basis to them.

I'm not falsely accusing Craig - I'm attempting to get an accurate translation and understanding of the words that Yahuweh used, and I will not sit back and let someone else butcher them when it is quite clearly observed that they're not really bothered in providing a correct and accurate translation of Yahuweh's words for those that read their productions.

Oh, and recalling a previous comment that might be getting passed around, let Larry know that I don't have a 'degree in Greek'. I don't know where on earth he got that idea from - but hey, it's not like Larry to tell people something factual, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised

Τ: It comes down to the fact that Paul was a false prophet.. he stands against Yah on the issue of the covenant and on the issue of circumcision. And if you seriously think Yah would ever 'command' His children versus intruct them, then you don't even know Him. I'm done arguing about Pauline anti-Yah doctrine.

Τ: the above rebuttle is totally wrong.. I won't argue about this anymore, as I can use that time to study about Yah from His Word.

κροων: Interesting thread. The debate on the validity of paul's apostleship rages on......
I look at it like this: Since Torah says what it says, and is unchangeable, reading Paul's letters is really unnecessary, thus rendering the debate pointless.
I'm more interested in what the Torah actually says, and what every word really means. Since we know it is entirely perfect, transforming the soul, then that tells me what is important to understand.

Shalom, Shalom.

-----End-----

I'll post some more comments on this later, but I just want to ask a quick question first: Bar my mentioning the "Questioning Paul Review", where exactly, in this discussion, did I ever engage in a discussion on "Pauline" doctrine? I only ever talked about ItG ('Introduction to God' - which it actually isn't) and its incorrect translation of Yahuweh's words - I never brought 'Paul' into the discussion for us to "stop" talking about it - it never actually started.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Rob » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:06 pm

It's always the same... it makes me sad.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:00 pm

Gonna do this in stages, as I don't have time to do everything in one post.

Just to pick on a few things:
Τ: And if you seriously think Yah would ever 'command' His children versus intruct them, then you don't even know Him.
Then Yah made a poor choice in using the Hebrew word mitswah, which is a derivative of tsawah meaning "to command, charge, give orders, lay charge, give charge to, order (Strongs #H6680)" (for the record: Yah didn't make a poor choice - He never does). Nouns come from verbs, so if tsawah means "to command" (eg Exodus 1:22: Then Pharaoh commanded (tsawah) all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”) then mitswah is "commandment".

However, as I did also say in my comment on mitswah: "It could also mean "ordinance, instruction, and prescription", all of which would've been the accurate and amplified translation of the word", I wasn't saying it *only* meant commandment - it has several meanings, all of which are usually meant. Just because "command" has a negative connotation in today's world, it doesn't have to contain such a thing. Nevertheless, parents do command their children ("Don't throw water on the TV; don't run out in front of a car; take a break from cleaning up"), but as far as I can see, there isn't much difference between a command or an instruction when it comes to parents & children - a command is usually an instruction to keep the child safe.

What I contended was mitswah meaning "the terms and conditions of Your relationship agreement" - that is the meaning of the word beriyth/covenant - and if Yah wanted to use beriyth, there's no reason why He couldn't've done so - He just didn't, so you can't just mix and match whatever the hell "translation" you want of words.

Furthermore, I did ask for someone to provide the source for CW's rendition of 'ahab, and I presumed that people would therefore provide one for the other words as well. If that can be done, I'd be more than willing to concede that I'd be wrong on this. However, going by the "because Craig Winn has said it so" is not sufficient. As with all things, most people require genuine evidence before they admit to being wrong; me being one of them
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Royce
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Royce » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I think CW readers like to feel like since he has broken the DSS down and added a bunch of personal commentary about his opinion on the scriptures that Craig must be correct on all this. I personally am not a fan but the thing that gets me about him is his hatred for muslims has blinded him of his objectivity and ability to accept evidence. For instance he believes they did 911 after so much evidence and many scientists as well as others have come out with info that at the very least makes you know that the ones that did this were allowed by those in control of security and air traffic. And supposedly our creator speaks to him as if he is something special. Its comical really.

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Rob » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:08 pm

I can't really speak for who did 911 - I have not seen this evidence you speak of. I have heard pretty much all the versions though.

I don't doubt Craig's passion and I don't mind what he wants to believe - I mean at the end of the day we can all live without Paul, Paul is a non-issue here. The issue is accuracy, truth and honesty. Added to that is influence, which Craig - because of all the work he has done - has led people to be very quick to accept what he says as fact.

Craig has always kept to "Don't take my word for it" so frankly I am not, and I would advise other people to do that too. Not because I think Craig is evil, I don't. I just think on the matter of Paul he is mistaken - and being mistaken is something I know Craig doesn't want to be.

One man's belief is his own, but influencing others or being influenced by one point of view because of who that person is, is never a good place to be.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Sat May 05, 2012 7:14 pm

I wouldn't really care at all if it was just CW's opinion being flouted on his own websites - there's more than enough sites that do that about themselves. But when his "translations" are quoted as if they were 100% accurate, and his commentary on them posted as if he was writing Scripture, that's when I start having a problem with it - hence my comments when, in response to Δυναμις, T quoted from CW's Questioning Paul's rendition of sections from Matthew, which I know to be completely and utterly wrong; not to mention the fact that I demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek to save his life in QPR - Part 1, yet people *still* quote his Greek "translations" as if he'd translated them correctly.

Further to that, I've yet to have a single person point out anything wrong I'd written in The Great Galatians Debate, which demonstrates that Paul never wrote a single word that is found in the fraudulent letter known as Galatians, which is where most people's "problem" with Paul stems from.

Now I concede that T "might not know" that CW can't translate Greek, as T himself states that he hasn't read the QPR, but then why is T quoting from QP, knowing that it's been more than well demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek? Oh that's right, because according to T he "won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings."

First to point out: if he hasn't read QP, why is he quoting a huge section from it (and how did he know that section was there to begin with if he hasn't read it?), and why is he really refusing to read the QP reviews? Because he'd rather study the TPP rather than the RC/NT? That's such a pathetic excuse when you quote from QP as if it was 100% true. It is "wilful ignorance" on T's part because then it calls into question all of CW's translations, and therefore all his commentary.

It also doesn't help that T appears to be unable to read Hebrew, therefore making the "study" of the TPP an impossibility. Someone may have the Logos Bible Software package, but that means jack-all when it comes to being able to study the Hebrew and Aramaic text (and Greek text I might add) of the TPP. Being able to use Logos Bible Software does not a translation - nor a translator - make; which is also CW's problem also, hence why his translations of the TPP don't actually follow the text as it is fully written in the TPP.

Unfortunately, whether willingly or unwillingly I am unable to pass judgement, CW has been turned into a kinda "Pope" figure, with his own ambassador bishops, forum deacons, and personal laity, who hang onto his every word and spout his translations and commentary as if CW was himself Yah's representative on earth, or as you've said Royce, "he is something special".

Whatever's speaking to CW, it seems to be incapable of getting its facts right or to CW properly, or inspiring translational competence.

Doesn't sound like Yah to me. How about the rest of you?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Rob » Wed May 16, 2012 9:40 am

I have to agree.

steve

Re: The discussion continues

Postby steve » Tue May 22, 2012 11:11 pm

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?

btw... I do not "follow" CW... I do respect the man and I have found much of his studies enlightening... I have shared some of his Scripture renderings, his translations of Hebrew mainly. So what?

It's kind of lame to insult the man behind his back... or to call people who have gained some knowledge and insights in the Towrah and Hebrew through his studies, groupies or sheep following the man instead of YHWH.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Wed May 23, 2012 12:26 am

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?
Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?
btw... I do not "follow" CW... I do respect the man and I have found much of his studies enlightening... I have shared some of his Scripture renderings, his translations of Hebrew mainly. So what?
Did you check that what you'd quoted was actually correct, at all? If you'd hadn't, then you're no better than the Christians who quote their favourite Bible version as if it was the translation or not.

Nevertheless, people quoting CW "translations" doesn't really matter - when however those quotations that are given don't actually follow the text they're supposedly "translating", don't expect those who can see the error to just keep quiet about it.

Also, as shown - CW's Hebrew "translations" aren't correct, so you'd therefore be sowing the seeds of false information. Congratulations.
It's kind of lame to insult the man behind his back...
Who's doing this behind his back? I'm not insulting the man behind his back - I'm pointing out his errors publicly, on a public forum and in free downloadable reading formats that everyone in the world is able to see, not to mention on very public sites like Facebook.

Unlike certain people, I don't have any hidden groups where the vultures can gather. Plus if this is the Steve I'm thinking it is (although do correct me if you're not S.P.), then you're a fine one to talk about people talking behind someone's back. If you're not, then I apologise; but your accusation is unfounded, nonetheless.
or to call people who have gained some knowledge and insights in the Towrah and Hebrew through his studies, groupies or sheep following the man instead of YHWH.
Erm, who called whom "groupies" or "sheep"? Until you've mentioned these two words, no one else here has used them.

Also, if I was to never to point out the errors of people who've gained some knowledge and insights into the Torah and Hebrew, then there are few people on the planet that I'd be able to point out their errors, and we can just all go on with our lives holding hands and throwing daisies into the air.

Gaining knowledge and insights are great - but not if they're based on incorrect assumptions and errors. Then they're no longer knowledgeable or insightful.

Now, seeing as though you haven't said anything that was pertinent to the comments at hand, do you have something on topic to actually say? I'd like to know what I said that was "totally wrong"? It's hard to learn from the mistakes people constantly make if it isn't shown to them where they're supposed to have erred, especially if they can't see it themselves. I'm no exception - just ask Rob!
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

steve

Re: The discussion continues

Postby steve » Wed May 23, 2012 1:42 am

"Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?"


ok... I see now. It's all about you. Sorry. Carry on.

Royce
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Royce » Wed May 23, 2012 3:04 am

I wouldn't really care at all if it was just CW's opinion being flouted on his own websites - there's more than enough sites that do that about themselves. But when his "translations" are quoted as if they were 100% accurate, and his commentary on them posted as if he was writing Scripture, that's when I start having a problem with it - hence my comments when, in response to Δυναμις, T quoted from CW's Questioning Paul's rendition of sections from Matthew, which I know to be completely and utterly wrong; not to mention the fact that I demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek to save his life in QPR - Part 1, yet people *still* quote his Greek "translations" as if he'd translated them correctly.

Further to that, I've yet to have a single person point out anything wrong I'd written in The Great Galatians Debate, which demonstrates that Paul never wrote a single word that is found in the fraudulent letter known as Galatians, which is where most people's "problem" with Paul stems from.

Now I concede that T "might not know" that CW can't translate Greek, as T himself states that he hasn't read the QPR, but then why is T quoting from QP, knowing that it's been more than well demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek? Oh that's right, because according to T he "won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings."

First to point out: if he hasn't read QP, why is he quoting a huge section from it (and how did he know that section was there to begin with if he hasn't read it?), and why is he really refusing to read the QP reviews? Because he'd rather study the TPP rather than the RC/NT? That's such a pathetic excuse when you quote from QP as if it was 100% true. It is "wilful ignorance" on T's part because then it calls into question all of CW's translations, and therefore all his commentary.

It also doesn't help that T appears to be unable to read Hebrew, therefore making the "study" of the TPP an impossibility. Someone may have the Logos Bible Software package, but that means jack-all when it comes to being able to study the Hebrew and Aramaic text (and Greek text I might add) of the TPP. Being able to use Logos Bible Software does not a translation - nor a translator - make; which is also CW's problem also, hence why his translations of the TPP don't actually follow the text as it is fully written in the TPP.

Unfortunately, whether willingly or unwillingly I am unable to pass judgement, CW has been turned into a kinda "Pope" figure, with his own ambassador bishops, forum deacons, and personal laity, who hang onto his every word and spout his translations and commentary as if CW was himself Yah's representative on earth, or as you've said Royce, "he is something special".

Whatever's speaking to CW, it seems to be incapable of getting its facts right or to CW properly, or inspiring translational competence.

Doesn't sound like Yah to me. How about the rest of you?
Awesome! Had me grinning ear to ear! A man after my own heart!

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Wed May 23, 2012 7:20 am

"Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?"


ok... I see now. It's all about you. Sorry. Carry on.
No, it's not all about me.

That wasn't the point of what I was saying. You mentioned "Paul" for absolutely no reason whatsoever. This was a topic to continue the discussion of Psalm 119, and whether the rendition of it in ItG was correct or not.

Since "Paul" doesn't come into it, you had no reason to bother mentioning him.

People sure have a fine way of finding ways of not answering the topic at hand. Perhaps you don't have the ability to comprehend this?
Awesome! Had me grinning ear to ear! A man after my own heart!
:D
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Rob » Wed May 23, 2012 8:03 am

Ok come on now people (stares at Swaclhy) no need to be like this.

THIS has to be understood about Paul and our generalised viewpoints (mine and Swalchy's I think do differ a little). I have said it many many times - and I need to keep repeating it.

Paul doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If Paul was an evil man who lead people away from Yah then that's what he was, if he was the best guy in the world then that was what he was. If he was just a normal pro-active guy then you guessed it, that's what he was. The problem we have is we can only go off the evidence we have.

Accusing Paul of pretty much everything under the sun and using bad sources to do it with is just silly, not only silly it's a lie. Lie's in this "game" are dangerous. We are looking for the Truth, we came away from lies to get to the Truth. We don't need more lies.

Paul isn't a problem - because he's just a bloke. The problem comes with the false teachings and opinions that come from being either "anti" or "pro". I would say "pro" Paul are the Christian's who twist Pauls words one way into Christianity and the "anti" Paul take that and scream "LOOK LOOK PAUL IS EVIL".

The problem is - it's all based on bollocks.

All we can do at the best is a little detective work to see if what he is supposed to have written, he wrote. Swalchy, fuelled on by myself, decided to take a detailed look at that in regards to Galatians and found it didn't meet pretty much any of the criteria scholars use to rank the other books. No one has been able to prove it wrong, no one seems to care - because of what "other" people have said about Galatians or Paul.

Now because we stick to what we can see from the evidence we have we are constantly labelled as Paul's best mates. It's like leaving the Church all over again, no one cares to actually take the time to understand they just stick on the labels that make them comfortable.

Craig is wrong on this, and it is effecting pretty much everything else he speaks about - it's like some kind of poison dripping through all the good ideas he has had.

Summery: We are not pro Paul - we are pro facts and truth, Paul just happens to be at the centre of this particular issue.

steve

Re: The discussion continues

Postby steve » Wed May 23, 2012 12:53 pm

People sure have a fine way of finding ways of not answering the topic at hand. Perhaps you don't have the ability to comprehend this?

so the discussion should really continue in an open-forum format, that anyone can view.


My initial comments here did just that... which in turn you dissected into my failure to address your comments and questions.

so... which is the "topic at hand"... continuing the discussion which was 95% of your first post ... or only addressing your comments there or your statements and question?

Yes, FB is lame... a forum is a better format to discuss, find and continue a discussion of a given topic under a general heading.
No, you did not address "the sha'ul's" doctrine in that thread.

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?

Since when was that one of the questions ...


Tue May 22, 2012 11:11 pm and again right now.

Guest

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Guest » Wed May 23, 2012 1:24 pm

btw... if...

This was a topic to continue the discussion of Psalm 119, and whether the rendition of it in ItG was correct or not.

... why not state that "in the topic". Perhaps you do not have the ability to be precise and communicate very well?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Wed May 23, 2012 6:48 pm

I presumed that people would read to the end of the comments section, and onto my initial edit of that first post, where I continued the discussion on Psalm 119:127.

But you're right, it's my fault that I didn't make that clear. My mistake. That won't be happening again.

Regarding Paul/Sha'uwl: Robski pretty much nailed it on the head. I don't care for Paul; no one here promotes Paul or even quotes him - our objective is to find the facts, and therefore the truth. But with this comes our inability to let lies and deceit go, and especially when it comes down to faulty, fraudulent and incorrect translations of Yahuweh's chosen words promoted as genuine and true translations of Yahuweh's chosen words.

That is what I want to find out: what Yahuweh actually said; not what someone else says He said. This is why we all should endeavour to check each and everything that is stated as fact: it's the only way we can ascertain whether someone is telling the truth, or lying.

Whilst you're not be blindly following Craig, Steve; I'm afraid I don't agree that isn't the same for many people who just quote his stuff. I see it as no different to those who blindly quote Christian theologians words or their favourite Christian authors words (a popular one at the moment is the murmurings of Rick Warren) without any words of their own. It shows that no actual thinking is being done, and that's not a good thing
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

steve

Re: The discussion continues

Postby steve » Thu May 24, 2012 12:19 am

Maybe some people roll with something CW has written and then take an improper attitude and present some of his stuff as. "written in stone" or "this is 100% accurate" and no other way of viewing this is right...

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact". He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.

As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.

What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Swalchy » Thu May 24, 2012 8:28 am

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
Whilst he may not say this on his Radio show, Steve - he's certainly written it. Questioning Paul is replete with him saying "this is accurate" or "this is what the words say". I don't know whether you've read QP or not, but I demonstrate in QPR- Part 1 that Craig cannot make these bold claims.

Now, whilst ItG may not specifically state that the translations therein are "100% accurate and fact", Craig does however say this: Therefore, accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching is the primary purpose of this Introduction to God. So why wouldn't someone assume that therefore he's meaning that his translations therein aren't "accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching"?

He also says this with regards to Yada-Yahweh: ...Yada Yah is among the best-researched and most-accurate presentations of Yah’s Word... If that isn't bigging up his own self, what else could he say? (All the above are taken from The ItG Prologue).

Saying that, I found this in ItG - Terms: If you are going to speak for God, quote Him accurately. This is what I intend to do - and I have found errors in Craig's quotations of Yahuweh's words.

Also, my problem actually isn't with Craig or his writings - it was other people constantly quoting them, and pushing them in people's faces as if they were 100% fact. It also didn't help that they never mentioned where they got their words from, nor gave a return link to where someone could read them in context. That was my main problem, and the exact reason why I actually bothered to pitch in on the comments to do with that stupid picture. I usually let idiotic stuff like that go - but not that time.
He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.
I may not've read all the way though ItG, but I've rarely seen this happen. I see but one translation put forth for the words rendered. Although as I've said, not read all the way through ItG - I've got better things to be doing with my time.
As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
Herein lies the problem Steve - whilst Craig says that people should check out his words, who exactly is equipped or able to do so? It would be like a Scientists stating "Hey - if you want to know whether a hadron collider can do what we say it does or not, why don't you build one yourself?" Few people have the ability to do this - and that also comes with being able to check what Craig has written as well. Very few people are able to do so, and those of us who try are ignored, and despite our own writings being a heck of a lot less words than Craig's, we get complained to that our "rebuttals are too long".

If you've got the ability to read QP, or YY, or ItG, then you've surely got the ability to read something else counter to them. It's all just a pathetic cop-out.
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.
I only pointed out those errors in Psalm 119:127 as an example to those who said they hadn't found any errors in Craig's Hebrew translation. It wasn't meant to be an end-all statement about the Psalm itself. Also, if we used the verse as the basis, then 60% of Craig's translation of Psalm 119 is wrong (give or take a few % - I haven't gone through it all). You may argue that that's better than the KJV's 70-80% wrong, but I disagree. Incorrect is incorrect - being slightly less incorrect than someone else, is still incorrect, and no one on the planet should settle for that.
What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.
But that depends on your perspective now, doesn't it? To you he isn't - to others he is.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: The discussion continues

Postby Rob » Thu May 24, 2012 10:17 am

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
This is exactly why I want this issue resolved, because I know Craig doesn't want to be inaccurate. Craig is a passionate man and everything he is doing is from what he can see right - I have no doubt in his motives. Craig is an awesome resource to have on side, but like all of us he is only human and unfortunately when questions were brought to him he reacted in a way that was human, the same way people react in forms, the same way I react to my mother when discussing this and the same way I have to beat Swalchy into humility regularly, he is a man and men all too easily get on a high horse :D (friends recognise this and disarm the situation as quickly and nicely as possible ;))

He asked us to question him and we did and we were dismissed - this is such a shame as the issues didn't get resolved we just got expelled and our reputations attacked, which is pretty much what happened when we left church.

I am not bothered about getting one up or winning an argument - I just want us all to work together, there aren't too many of us who think like this so splitting because people wont let people question with valid and rational arguments is just daft.

We got no response from anyone other than being told we are Pro Paul or that they agree with Swalchy's findings...

steve

Re: The discussion continues

Postby steve » Thu May 24, 2012 1:40 pm

Anyway, Swalchy... ( is your name Steve also ...? what the what is a "swalchy" :) Sorry I came on your forum here in a confrontational manner.

I'll just say this... Craig should not be the focus nor is he the enemy. I see his work as a catalyst that helps many people change their perspective on Yah and "religion". This is a good thing.


Return to “For All”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron