Da Evil of changing (insert gasp here) Da Bible

Image

Oh dear, it seems I’m in league with Satan.  A blogger http://wdednh.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/new-modern-translation-bible-omits-the-term-christ/ posted a concern about some new translation and stated in his comments specifically that the new translation leaves out names as in says Jesus the Anointed One rather than Jesus Christ (leaving out Christ or rather using the definition of the word Christ is someone leaving out the last name of Jesus?).  Anyway, I posted specifically in regards to that, trying to reassure him that the end was not near, when along comes Short Little Rebel ( http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/ ) responding to my post about the “ancient movement afoot” to replace Jesus with Satan and it all starts with the evils of changing scripture like this, and attaching it to the Freemason conspiracy and ends with:

“This type of new Bible is attempting to make God’s commands and Person EASY for weak Christians. It is also inviting brotherhood by diminishing the requirements of faith. It attempts to seduce those who wish for the promises of God but do not wish to fulfill their end of the bargain.

A great tool for Satan. We must pray for those seduced, pray for justice and do our part by alerting the world to these types of efforts. Thank you for the heads up. I will repost and spread the word…”

Not sure why an experienced blogger would reply with that to MY post instead of the original post, but she did, so I assume she was talking to me specificaly.  I got a bit cheeky and told her maybe we should go back to the original Greek and Hebrew and require that the church tell us what to believe about Scripture, then went on to tell her that my belief is the biggest danger to Christianity today is our own refusing to adapt and change, denying truths and causing our young people to believe we are lying to them.  I also reminded her that God’s WORD is not the Bible, but Jesus and that while we may understand him differently, he hasn’t changed one bit.

The biting response came in simply saying she saw through my evil facade and knew in fact that I wasn’t even a Christian, but rather some evil minion there with ulterior motives…whatever that means.

She went on to repost it on her on blog, to which someone of course blamed the Muslims for this new evil translation and in fact the whole attempt to water down Scripture….??

Is it any wonder the Church is dying?  We have people who defend the Bible so strongly not even knowing what it means–to the point of getting ready to start a holy war because some new translation calls the Son of God: Jesus the Anointed One rather than Jesus Christ when Anointed One is the DEFINITION of the word Christ!  People are simply not interested in joining our faith when we act like this…sad.

And just a few quick steps later, the entire thing is a conspiracy dreamed up by Satan and The Muslims across the world in order to destroy Christ.

Ayy, we are still our own worst enemy in the Body of Christ, killing ourselves with ignorance and holier than thou lack of knowledge about our own sacred writings.

Lord help me!

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Real Gospel in the Real World, Scriptural Interpretation and Translation

9 responses to “Da Evil of changing (insert gasp here) Da Bible

  1. Wooh, it has heated up. Rebel ain’t happy with me one bit. This should be fun. Let’s go poke the fundes!

    • wdednh

      Wow, Really?”Let’s go poke the fundes”, How Christ like of you 😦 “, I am sadden by this, coming from a PASTOR, Really? Wow. this whole post is just sad, coming From pastor and all the other diplomas you cast on as your authoritative. You call your self an Elder of a church, I am ashamed of being Christian as long as YOU MISREPRESENT Christianity with ordination and other stuffed you claimed to have.And here you are showing your COLOR. Shame on you.Rebel was so right about you and your intents.
      Pastor Anthony Granada
      wdednh.wp.com
      Church of God

      • I’m sorry you are ashamed of being Christian. You know, even the attacks of being like satan, of being told I’m not even Christian, etc…nothing makes me ashamed to be a Christian, following Christ. But I will remove myself from being updated on your blog–you won’t be troubled by me again. As to misrepresentation, not on this end my friend, not on this end. You might not like it (I may not either for that matter) but the body of Christ is big enough for both of us, you a fundie and me not. When Jesus stretched out his arms and died, he stretched ALL the way out.
        blessings and welcome to my little corner of the universe!

  2. Perhaps people are not interested in what you are telling them Pastor, but that does not mean they are not interested in Christ and what God and His Son offer. I have personally seen a dramatic increase in those looking for God. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Christ in the original Greek Testement? And if we take Christ out, are we not taking away from the Scripture, and does not Scripture tell us that it is the word of God and that we should neither add nor take away from the scriptures?
    Your title of your post makes one believe that you think that it is no big deal to change the Bible and that altering the Scriptures is just another process, is this what you believe? Do you not worry that you are leading your followers astray? The price for doing that is a terrible price to pay, as well as causing your followers to miss out on God’s promise. From your post it also seems as if you do not believe that the Scriptures come from God either, what exactly is it that you do believe? If you just believe that the Bible is a sort of history book written by men who in some cases were compatriots of Jesus, or were just recounting what they heard from others, what is your thinking on other Gods and other Religions?

    • I’ll try to take this a little at a time, but the reply must be a bit lengthy

      Perhaps people are not interested in what you are telling them Pastor, but that does not mean they are not interested in Christ and what God and His Son offer.

      agreed, I’ve not said differently nor have I said they are not interested in what I am “telling” them.

      I have personally seen a dramatic increase in those looking for God.

      me too

      Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Christ in the original Greek Testement? And if we take Christ out, are we not taking away from the Scripture, and does not Scripture tell us that it is the word of God and that we should neither add nor take away from the scriptures?

      are you sure you want that? No, Christos is in the New Testament, not Christ. Christ is a translation. From the lexicon: The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
      Strong’s Number: 5547
      Original Word Word Origin
      cristoß from (5548)
      Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
      Christos 9:493,1322
      Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
      khris-tos’ Adjective
      Definition
      Christ = “anointed”
      Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
      anointed

      NAS Word Usage – Total: 531
      Christ 516, Christ’s 11, Messiah 4

      It is a translation, not in the original. In Greek, Christos is a translation of the Hebrew word, “Messiah,” which is also used in Scriptures, but it’s meaning is ANOINTED, which is an adjective or a TITLE. So, while that is the translation I prefer (Christ), a perfectly valid translation of the same word is “Anointed.” To Call Jesus the Anointed One OR the Messiah is certainly not an insult and does nothing to take away from who he is–the Son of God, the Messiah, The Anointed one, the Christ…
      as to the rest, The Bible says in Revelation what you quote about taking away or adding to “this book.” The word, “Bible” is from the same root word as our word for “library.” It is a collection of books, not a single book. The author of Revelation was writing an Apocalyptic, circuit letter that was written in code and passed from church to church. Typical of this style of writing was a warning to not change it on it’s way around the circuit, but it refers to the singular book of Revelation, not the Bible, which at that time, didn’t include anything except the Old Testament and at the time, according to the Christians of John’s day, included many books that Luther later removed and considered “not true scripture.” But I digress, John never meant to apply that warning to the Entirety of what we now know as The Bible.

      Your title of your post makes one believe that you think that it is no big deal to change the Bible and that altering the Scriptures is just another process, is this what you believe?

      Change it from what exactly? I’m all in favor of continuing to study and attempt to better translate the oldest manuscripts we have. But the assumption in this (please correct me if I misread you) is that if someone translates differently from what one finds in their preferred translation, then they have “changed the Bible.” When in fact, all translations, even yes, the King James 1611, were different from their predecessors as people continued to learn and understand more of the cultural and linguistic facets of the manuscripts they had in hand in Greek and Hebrew.

      Do you not worry that you are leading your followers astray? The price for doing that is a terrible price to pay, as well as causing your followers to miss out on God’s promise.

      No, I’m not worried about that. I do the best I can with the tools God has given me, but again, I’ve not done anything anti scriptural.

      From your post it also seems as if you do not believe that the Scriptures come from God either, what exactly is it that you do believe?

      I’m not sure why it seems that way, but yes, I believe that the Bible is God inspired and written, copied, and translated by fallible humans. We have over 5000 partial or entire manuscripts that date to the first couple centuries after Christ, but none of them agree entirely with each other and none of them is old enough to have been the original. We make do with what we have. Additionally, we have to remember that it was men who chose which books would be excluded from the Bible and that process (in the mainline Protestant Bibles) took place as recently as the days of Martin Luther. Do we assume then that anyone who had a Bible prior to his day did NOT have God’s scriptures?

      If you just believe that the Bible is a sort of history book written by men who in some cases were compatriots of Jesus, or were just recounting what they heard from others, what is your thinking on other Gods and other Religions?

      parts of it are indeed a history book, part of it is poetic or wisdom writings, part of it is Apocryphal, part of it is Gospel, part of it is Epistles, part of it is Torah–it is important to distinguish which is which in order to properly exegete the passages. Not sure what that has to do with other religions or Gods, so that is hard to answer without more to go on

      • The part about adding to and taking away, did not come from Revelations, but from Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”
        But there are many other places where it is found! “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Proverbs 30:6.
        Perhaps I am misunderstand what your meaning is with your post, but the title seems to make a mockery of those who do believe that they should live by the scriptures. There are many of us who think that we should go back to the way that the Scriptures were taught in the time right after Jesus death. May I recommend my friend RJ Dawson’s blog “Real Christianity”
        http://realchristianity.wordpress.com/

        • I agree that such comments are found in many places, but I am not in agreement that they apply. If the OT passages applied, then the New Testament would never have been written or accepted. The canon of Scriptures is closed (probably) but God is still speaking. And I have NO intention of mocking those who believe they should live by scriptures. I intend to live totally by scriptures and at least try to weigh all I do by scriptures. I LOVE the scriptures and studying them my entire life (since before I was a teenager) has been my passion. And yes,I think we should try to go back to the earliest writing of Scriptures, which is why good and accurate exegesis is so important–and difficult–and a never ending process. What I am opposed to is believing we have to worship (yes I use that word intentionally) a specific translation of the Bible, or when someone reads an article (an unflattering one at that) about a new translation and then takes up arms against it. For me, it takes study, genuine study comparing not just to the translation I LIKE, but to the Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek. What I am opposed to is elevating Scripture to the place of Jesus. Only Jesus is God’s WORD (Logos), only Jesus was infallible. And in my humble opinion, when we try to ascribe those things to ink and paper, we have created an idol along side of the Christ. I will look over your friend’s blog. Blessings.
          Tommy

          • “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

            Would not Revelations continue the admonition since it restates Deut.4:2?

          • Not in my opinion, no. the quote in Deut 4 is written by the Deuteronomist supposedly coming from Moses–again, the same admonition, but in the case of Deut, it applies to the book of Deut. It was later that the Deuteronomist combined the first 5 books and edited them to be The Torah. Deut is a restatement, which oddly enough, doesn’t quote the other books exactly, even in the 10 commandments, so it does seem a stretch (in my humble opinion) to try to apply it to other books if the author actually does make some changes himself as he writes in the very same book.

            And in terms of Matthew–in reality, we KNOW that some of the gospel writers if not all–but PARTICULARLY , the Gospel of Matthew, quoted from the Septuagent, a Greek translation of the original Hebrew, so if translations were meant to be included in this very admonition, then Matthew himself would have been violating what he believed Jesus was saying as he quoted him. And realistically, I don’t know but one or two Messianic Christians who try to adhere to everything in the Torah. Most modern day Christians, even if claiming to, actually have some reason or another for NOT keeping part of the Torah, while insisting other parts are binding. I used to know one guy who insisted on keeping the Levitical law against tattoos, but said the very next verse, which prohibits shaving your beard or trimming your sideburns was not binding as it was “cultural.” For me, any reasoned interpretation of how we are to regard OT Law or can be valid IF it is consistent and logical. For me, Jesus said he FULFILLED the law, meaning he brought it into its final and complete form. it didn’t “die” or pass away, but it did change with Jesus. In reading the rest of chapter 5, he even goes into saying things (quoting the septuagent AND contemporary teachers), you have heard it said____________but I say__________. No, he didn’t do away with it, but it was changed-the word fulfill in Greek has many meanings, including filling it to the brim or making it now perfected in a new form, etc. That, again, like all Biblical interpretations is my studied yet humble opinion. Blessings