Was the Hebrew Bible mistranslated?

[Oldschool Flip]

If this is true, which I believe it is, then Christians have it all wrong about Jesus. This is another reason to not believe the Christian Bible is not accurate and was doctored to appease the masses.

http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/

[loco]

If this is true, which I believe it is, then Christians have it all wrong about Jesus. This is another reason to not believe the Christian Bible is not accurate and was doctored to appease the masses.

http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/

Interesting!  Why do you post this if you don't even know if it's true?  You believe everything you read on the Internet?  Are you fluent in Hebrew?  You said you believe it is true, why?  Don't you think it is in the best interest of religious Jewish scholars to discredit Christianity?

By the way, good luck explaining this to Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus, Christian Jews who know Hebrew, know the Old Testament and understand Judaism far better then you and I.

[Oldschool Flip]

Interesting!  Why do you post this if you don't even know if it's true?  You believe everything you read on the Internet?  Are you fluent in Hebrew?  You said you believe it is true, why?  Don't you think it is in the best interest of religious Jewish scholars to discredit Christianity?

By the way, good luck explaining this to Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus, Christian Jews who know Hebrew, know the Old Testament and understand Judaism far better then you and I.

Not fluent in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, however for me not to interested in what others have to say about the Hebrew Bible would be CLOSED MINDED. I came to my decision on faith, not just based on a lot of Christian BS, but as well as other religions as well. And who's to say they are wrong? People will interpret the Bible the way they want. The Christian Bible has been edited over and over again. What happen to the scripture of "nothing added, nothing taken away?"

[MCWAY]

If this is true, which I believe it is, then Christians have it all wrong about Jesus. This is another reason to not believe the Christian Bible is not accurate and was doctored to appease the masses.

http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/

Appease what masses? The Jewish masses wanted a Messiah to free them from Roman bondage. Jesus didn't do that and made it clear that His goal was not to restore Israel to prominence. Hence, John wrote "He came unto his own and his own recevied him not".

The Romans put early Christians to death, for their preaching in the name of Jesus Christ. And, to this day, the Bible (at least, the New Testament part of it) STILL doesn't "appease" the Jewish masses. The Jews still read from the Tanakh (or what Christians call the "Old Testament").

[Oldschool Flip]

Appease what masses? The Jewish masses wanted a Messiah to free them from Roman bondage. Jesus didn't do that and made it clear that His goal was not to restore Israel to prominence. Hence, John wrote "He came unto his own and his own recevied him not".

The Romans put early Christians to death, for their preaching in the name of Jesus Christ. And, to this day, the Bible (at least, the New Testament part of it) STILL doesn't "appease" the Jewish masses. The Jews still read from the Tanakh (or what Christians call the "Old Testament").

Um, translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to appease the Christian masses. And are you going to tell me the Bible hasn't been edited in English? And that things are added or taken away? And why did they need a

[Deicide]

Um, translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to appease the Christian masses. And are you going to tell me the Bible hasn't been edited in English? And that things are added or taken away? And why did they need a

Arguing with these fundies is just banging your head against a wall. I have done it many times before; others have. It is a total waste of time.

[MB_722]

weird I was thinking about this yesterday.

Sometimes I'll listen to some stuff on Judaism. Christians have misinterpreted the bible.


The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=217399.0

[loco]

No.

Louis Lapides, a Hebrew scholar and Messianic Jew, is a well-known writer and speaker on Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. One of the important pieces of evidence that convinced Lapides that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews was the fulfillment of prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures themselves. There are over 300 prophecies concerning the coming Messiah (about 40 of which are very specific), and Jesus fulfilled every one.

Some say this is just coincidence. Some say its Christian manipulation after-the-fact. Some say its interpretation out-of-context. However, all of these objections break down under investigation. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we now know with certainty that these Jewish prophecies pre-dated Jesus Christ, and that today's Old Testament translations are nearly identical to the ancient Hebrew texts.

Lapides has said, "You know, I go through books that people write to try to tear down what we believe. That's not fun to do, but I spend the time to look at each objection individually and then to research the context and the wording in the original language. And every single time, the prophecies have stood up and shown themselves to be true."

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/messianic-jew.htm

[Oldschool Flip]

No.

Louis Lapides, a Hebrew scholar and Messianic Jew, is a well-known writer and speaker on Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. One of the important pieces of evidence that convinced Lapides that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews was the fulfillment of prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures themselves. There are over 300 prophecies concerning the coming Messiah (about 40 of which are very specific), and Jesus fulfilled every one.

Some say this is just coincidence. Some say its Christian manipulation after-the-fact. Some say its interpretation out-of-context. However, all of these objections break down under investigation. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we now know with certainty that these Jewish prophecies pre-dated Jesus Christ, and that today's Old Testament translations are nearly identical to the ancient Hebrew texts.

Lapides has said, "You know, I go through books that people write to try to tear down what we believe. That's not fun to do, but I spend the time to look at each objection individually and then to research the context and the wording in the original language. And every single time, the prophecies have stood up and shown themselves to be true."

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/messianic-jew.htm

How about this loco?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/falsechrist.html

[loco]

How about this loco?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/falsechrist.html

What about it?  Did you read this yourself, or did you just Google "false christ" and posted the first thing you found? 

This website clearly states that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah/Christ promised in the OT/Tanaach, and it explains why.

Why would a Christian Think Tank website say otherwise anyway?

"Accordingly, I think the Christian understanding of the data from the OT/Tanaach, when compared with the details of Jesus’ words and actions (as recorded by the Jewish followers and writers of the New Testament) is a very reasonable one, and is actually a better one than other explanations of the relationship between the Suffering/Rejected messianic figure and the Victorious/Acclaimed messianic figure."

[MCWAY]

What about it?  Did you read this yourself, or did you just Google "false christ" and posted the first thing you found? 

This website clearly states that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah/Christ promised in the OT/Tanaach, and it explains why.

Why would a Christian Think Tank website say otherwise anyway?

"Accordingly, I think the Christian understanding of the data from the OT/Tanaach, when compared with the details of Jesus’ words and actions (as recorded by the Jewish followers and writers of the New Testament) is a very reasonable one, and is actually a better one than other explanations of the relationship between the Suffering/Rejected messianic figure and the Victorious/Acclaimed messianic figure."

That goes back to what I mentioned earlier. The Jews “received Him not”, because Jesus made it clear, that His mission was NOT to free them from Roman bondage and make Israel a world power. That's what the 1st-century Jews wanted Jesus to be. But, it has no bearing on whether or not He fulfilled the Messanic prophecies.

Arguing with these fundies is just banging your head against a wall. I have done it many times before; others have. It is a total waste of time.

No. Flip argues. You curse, swear, make mindless cut-and-paste arguments (virtually all of which are easy to refute), and run for the hills, when you can't stand up on your own.

And, despite it being "a total waste of time", you continue to post the latest "flavor of the week", there-is-no-God blurb that tickles your fancy.

Um, translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to appease the Christian masses. And are you going to tell me the Bible hasn't been edited in English? And that things are added or taken away? And why did they need a

First, you didn't finish your thought. Second, since when is having the Bible, written in your native tongue, appeasement? Third, what exactly are all these MASSIVE edits that supposedly give a different picture of Jesus (in the English translations) that are not present in the Hebrew or Greek versions of the Bible?

[Oldschool Flip]

First, you didn't finish your thought. Second, since when is having the Bible, written in your native tongue, appeasement? Third, what exactly are all these MASSIVE edits that supposedly give a different picture of Jesus (in the English translations) that are not present in the Hebrew or Greek versions of the Bible?

Of course if something doesn't "sound" right, you can edit it to appease. Some of the translations were incomprehensible so revised editions were done. This is not news.

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm#kjv

[MCWAY]

Of course if something doesn't "sound" right, you can edit it to appease. Some of the translations were incomprehensible so revised editions were done. This is not news.

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm#kjv

Again, where are these major discrepancies in the English translations that paint Jesus Christ in a different light than that of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? What supposedly didn't sound right and was changed, for the purpose of appeasement?

[Oldschool Flip]

Again, where are these major discrepancies in the English translations that paint Jesus Christ in a different light than that of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? What supposedly didn't sound right and was changed, for the purpose of appeasement?

The Hebrew Bible doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The New Testament does which was solely written in Greek and not Hebrew. Christian Bibles take their lead from the Greek writings and manipulated some scriptures.

Christians, however, had a different set of questions than the Dead Sea sect, and so they found different texts to cite. Any texts that refer to a time of a future deliverance, or the coming of a future king, were fair game. So the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 becomes the suffering Jesus of the gospels. And Luke's quotation from Isaiah 61 becomes a reference to Jesus's ministry of healing and reconciliation. Yet in every case, as far as we can tell, the Christian reading comes after the fact. That is, they first believed in Jesus and then tried to find his life in Scripture. They then could shape their telling of stories about his life to fit the scriptures. This process may seem very circular, but given their assumptions -- namely, that Jesus is central to God's plan, that God spoke through prophets who might not understand their own words, and that the Bible was a cryptic puzzle needing solving -- this belief in prophecy and fulfillment is not incomprehensible. So Luke can have Jesus say, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your presence!" Jesus saw himself as the deliverer that the prophets had foreseen long before. When his followers drew the same conclusion, they could then retain the ancient Scriptures, transforming them into something new, a Christian Bible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html

[MCWAY]

The Hebrew Bible doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The New Testament does which was solely written in Greek and not Hebrew. Christian Bibles take their lead from the Greek writings and manipulated some scriptures.

Christians, however, had a different set of questions than the Dead Sea sect, and so they found different texts to cite. Any texts that refer to a time of a future deliverance, or the coming of a future king, were fair game. So the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 becomes the suffering Jesus of the gospels. And Luke's quotation from Isaiah 61 becomes a reference to Jesus's ministry of healing and reconciliation. Yet in every case, as far as we can tell, the Christian reading comes after the fact. That is, they first believed in Jesus and then tried to find his life in Scripture. They then could shape their telling of stories about his life to fit the scriptures. This process may seem very circular, but given their assumptions -- namely, that Jesus is central to God's plan, that God spoke through prophets who might not understand their own words, and that the Bible was a cryptic puzzle needing solving -- this belief in prophecy and fulfillment is not incomprehensible. So Luke can have Jesus say, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your presence!" Jesus saw himself as the deliverer that the prophets had foreseen long before. When his followers drew the same conclusion, they could then retain the ancient Scriptures, transforming them into something new, a Christian Bible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html

You're not making a lot of sense, here. "Christian Bibles" are composed of BOTH the Old Testament (aka the Tanakh, aka the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament. The OT was written some time before Jesus was even born. Plus, you forget that, initially, the disciples themselves thought that Jesus was going to do what most Jews were hoping that the Messiah would do: liberate Israel from Roman rule (in fact, we have the mothers of two of Jesus' disciples, politicking to get their sons positions in what-they-think-will-be Jesus' earthly kingdom).

Jesus did NOT free Israel from Roman domination. And, as mentioned elsewhere, the disciples saw him tortured and crucified. But, to once again use a quote from Dr. N.T. Wright, "Since everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explained why they said Jesus was the Messiah is that they believed that He'd been bodily raised from the dead." Or, as Wright also stated, the disciples didn't get another Messiah, after Jesus had been crucified. It was after the Resurrection, that they finally got it.

Plus, Luke records that Simeon, and the prophetess, Anna, saw Jesus as a 6-week old baby and declared that He was whom the prophets (from the OT/Tanakh) foretold. Simeon had waited his whole priestly life to see the Messiah and stated that he could die in peace, knowing that the Lord had fulfilled what He (through the prophets) promised.

[liberalismo]

There is more than 1 translation.

There are contradictions in the KJV where one word is translated different ways in the same context.

[Mars]

interesting stuff.

[big L dawg]

were knowledge ends.religion begins.

[Oldschool Flip]

Religion begins in the home. But like eating right and exercise (the reason why we have fat toddlers and teens now) religion is being taken less seriously.

[big L dawg]

when you understand why you dismise all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[tu_holmes]

Of course the Bible was mistranslated... It's in ancient Hebrew... a language that is lost.

Most assuredly, the old testament is misinterpreted... Items like the "Red Sea" which is believed to have been the "Reed Sea" and things of that nature.

[Oldschool Flip]

But millions of Christians rely on the Bible for their faith. It's the root of their belief. More and more people are becoming aware of this and because it wasn't really challenged before, previous generations just took the word of their parents and family that the Bible is the word of God. Now that more people are actually using common sense and using research and their own instincts of how stories are told, you are starting to see more people that are non religious.

[loco]

You guys really need to research where the Hebrew Bible came from.  Look these up and learn what they are, where they came from and how they are significant to the accuracy of the current texts:

The Tanakh

The Septuagint

The Letter of Aristeas

Masoretic Text

The Dead Sea scrolls

As for the New Testament:

The New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Just one example:

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

[Oldschool Flip]

You guys really need to research where the Hebrew Bible came from.  Look these up and learn what they are, where they came from and how they are significant to the accuracy of the current texts:

The Tanakh

The Septuagint

The Letter of Aristeas

Masoretic Text

The Dead Sea scrolls

As for the New Testament:

The New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Just one example:

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

I don't doubt that they were written loco. I doubt that they are true stories. Science proves that Aristotle's writings are true about physics, biology, zoology, etc. Just cause you have copies doesn't mean it's true. There are thousands upon thousands of ENQUIRER copies in the news stands every week. Would you use the amount of copies they print as true?

[loco]

I don't doubt that they were written loco. I doubt that they are true stories. Science proves that Aristotle's writings are true about physics, biology, zoology, etc. Just cause you have copies doesn't mean it's true. There are thousands upon thousands of ENQUIRER copies in the news stands every week. Would you use the amount of copies they print as true?

I thought we were debating whether or not the Hebrew Bible was mistranslated and the accuracy of the texts, not whether or not they were written.