Nr. 97: The Bible is corrupted, mistranslated and misleading in many things!

Nr. 97:

The Bible is corrupted, mistranslated and misleading in many things!

When Jesus was tempted and tried by Satan as he answered with one thing, the word of God. And we as believers have only one weapon against the enemy, God's word that is Spirit's sword!

How much can we trust the word of God is directly translated? It is very much that is mistranslated, badly translated and misleading. There are several reasons.

Max 95% of the bible is 100 translated correctly!

After studying the word of God night and day for 30 years so I would say Max 95% of the Bible is translated correctly, and therefore also the church all the way out to run in many respects.

Let me briefly take a few examples of misleading and incorrect translation:

1.) 1. Corinthians 1:4
'God's grace that is given you by Jesus Christ "
It appears here that the grace of God is mentioned, but given by Christ.
It seems rather to me that the same is given by the owner origins God, for the preposition here is not 'the' but 'in'

To gain insight into God's word is essential if we are victorious Christian or not. It beats the Lutheran thinking again that we are all freely by grace at all levels of Christian life, but it is also about dedication and insight.

2) The word forever:


By such words are translated wrong, and that has led to a major misunderstanding of the content of God's word is the Hebrew word "olam" and the Greek word "aion". This should not be translated as "eternity" or "world", but it should be translated as "age". The Hebrew language does not the time to eternity, but it seems the time in relation to time periods. It has no word in Hebrew called "eternity", but it says "in time". This is rendered in Greek in the phrase "EIS ton aion" meaning "in time". The time periods are never "eternal", but they have a specific duration-short or long.
If theologians had understood this, they had also understood that when Jesus came the first time, so he came with the offer of a certain age, and it was 1000 years of Empire. To be saved was the same as take part in age. The receiving part of the era, was thus saved and was at one time moved in the coming ages.
It is a disaster that not these words are directly translated. It had wanted to leave us a whole new understanding of the Bible's content. These reasons in a particular theological assessment, which in turn is influenced by Greek thought, looking at eternity and time differences and competitors.
This relationship, I have written about in many of my books, and despite the fact that theologians believe anything about this. To my surprise, I saw that Arnold G. Fructenbaum in his book: Israelogy. The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. pp. 655-656 claims the same as yours truly. He writes: "Classical Hebrew has no word which means" eternal. "The Hebrew form of" always "(olam), as BDB (a Hebrew-English lexicon of the Old Testament) says, means" long duration "," past "or "future." The Hebrew form means nothing more than "the end of a period of time." What this time period is all about, must be determined by the context or similar statements. In classical Hebrew, meant those words never or they meant not the meaning of eternity but they had a time limit. The time period could be the end of a man's life, or an age, but not "forever" in the sense of "eternity" ... "
How much more exciting and how much more right had not been reading the Bible, if theologians had managed to get this in place.
I just conclusion of this brief article allowed to come with some examples of the correct translation of a few statements in the NT "And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but did not find anything on it without just leaves. Then he said to it: Never in age (which is translated as" never ") to the more adult fruit at you. And soon withered fig tree. " (Mat.21, 19) The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. In 1000 year kingdom will again bear fruit, but in the time period between Israel's Rejection (year 70 after Christ) until the establishment of the kingdom, it shall not grow spiritual fruit in Israel.
"Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And behold I am with you until tidsalderens endetid. This is translated as" end of the world. "This means that God left to take care of Israel in the time-after the Christian church rapture .
"But the slave does not remain in the house (the Jewish Salvation house) in age. The son is there in age." (Joh.8, 35) Both of these places is wrong translated "for ever". The correct understanding of this is that the Son (Jesus) will be in Israel in age, which is the kingdom of Israel.
"And I give them tidsalderlig life, and they shall never perish in age, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand." (Joh.10, 28) These places are wrong translated "eternal life" and "forever". The correct understanding of this is that those who believed in Jesus by the Jews, were part of the era, which is the same as the kingdom of Israel.

3.)

The Holy Spirit is mistranslated through the whole Bible. In the basic text, and among others. a in the English Bible is the holy spirit that is translated correctly.

4) A has a lot of simple verse that is totally incorrect and misleading translation. That's bl. a Trinity which the Catholic Church introduced the 300 is demonic and unbiblical, which is very well documented and illustrated many other places on the blog and on our website.
Let me take an example. It's in Rome. 8 that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, this is man made, it is not in the basic text. But that spirit complements us in prayer, a bit of a difference? See here: http://janchristensen.net/artiklerhoved.php?side=den-hellige-aand-kompletterer-oss

5) It is very, very many additions as well, here's an example:
Theologians have pointed out several places in the NT to support in their view that God is three, three people. Father, Son and Holy Spirit-who are in a god. This dogma is not particularly emphasized in the Bible except in some later texts other than in the first Epistle of John chapter 5 verses 7-8
Through the Latin Middle Ages it was believed that the text said: There are three that bear witness in heaven. Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. Ah here it is, the dogma of the Trinity. But this is found only in the Latin manuscripts. Absolutely not in the Greek manuscripts of the NT.
When the New Testament of the Greek manuscripts were published in 1516, a scribe named Erasmus did not include these verses to the great hubbub of his theological opponents who maintained that he had a mischievous way removed Trinity from the Bible. Erasmus replied that he could not find this part in some of the Greek manuscripts he knew. And here goes the story. He challenged his opponents to produce a Greek manuscript of the Trinity. If they did it, he would include it in the next edition of the NT. In response produced his opponents a manuscript or at least they got a produced. Some copied John's first letter from the Greek, and added these verses, and presented them to Erasmus. As the honorable man he was, he included these verses in the next edition.
It was this version that became the basis for the King James version, which was important in the historical Bible in English. These verses are still in the King James version but not the newer and more reliable translations.
This is why an older generation of readers of the English Bible was assumed that the Bible taught the dogma of the Trinity, even though this is not found in any Greek manuscript in more than a thousand years.
So what is the most reliable? The Greek manuscripts or the much later Latin?
Now let this be very clear, I stick to the original Greek manuscript. Then one must reject both the Trinity and Jesus alone doctrine and belief in only one God, the Father and that he has only only begotten, Jesus Christ!

Aids in order to understand God's word right there, even for those who can not Hebrew and Greek. There are more tips here, but very good is the English Biblos.com that one can read verse by verse because the text and when you learn to use this is a very good tool: http://biblos.com/

There are several things that have made a strong impression on me, the book is by Bart D. Ehrman Jesus misquoted so they changed the Bible. Here is a brief discussion of the book and a link to Ehrman's website: What if the Bible does not reproduce the words of Jesus? What about the Bible as we know it today, has been edited by imitators and scholars through its 1500 year because of incompetence and deliberate manipulation? Can this change our view of Christianity? When Barth Ehrman, writer and world's leading Bible scholar, began to study Bible in the original the language, the shook. He could reveal a number of mistakes and intentional changes made by earlier translators, often under the strong influence of political and religious power struggles in their time. Ehrman draws a gloomy picture of the Bible's creation, he believes we have no possibility to reconstruct Jesus' original words. The book is also a personal account of how Ehrman discoveries are forcing him to leave his ultra-conservative biblical understanding and to assume a far more liberal Bible views. Ehrman concludes that the Bible is God's word, but a book written and created by fallible humans.
http://www.bartdehrman.com/

There are two text versions, no one is 100% reliable when we know that the Bible has gone from Hebrew \ Greek into Latin (the Septuagint) and then to our own language. This is a short-simplification, but it is important to include.

But the biggest danger is still not here, there are all those who mentor error in the word of God and that God's people do not follow God's word to the letter. But we must take into account that there are a lot of the brackets Catholic church and here in Norway, the brackets by hand from the Lutheran Church and the Lutherans who have been in the forefront of Bible translation, and others who have translated the Bible has not believed and taught the Godhead, which has spread very much wrong Bible translation and misleading way to believe. But here is an example of the how trustworthy word of God is just an detect it and believe it:

The first paper that makes a statement about the gun range - that is what fonts should be the guideline for menigetenes Iiv and learn - stems from Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, about 190 It's called Against the heretics. It does Irenaeus detailed account of the writings that were considered authentic record of what the apostles taught. Bishop Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus mentions in the Gospel of Judas, which he rejects as heretical.
In 1740 there was a librarian in Milan named Muratori. He took an inventory of about 200 with a list of the fonts which were included in the NT and that you thought were canonical. It is mainly the ones we have today. There was some discussion about whether the letter to the Hebrews, Peter's second letter, John's second and third letters, Jude and James were with.
When Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria wrote a circular to the churches in 367, was NT as today. In the Eastern Churches Council, a number of skepticism about the Revelation one more time.
What criteria were you after when you chose the fonts?
1. All fonts that were in direct connection with the apostles and their close associates were retained.
2. The writings were widely recognized in the largest churches.
3. Mon rejected the heresy contrary to the apostolic message, it was particularly Gnostic writings. Gnosticism was a heresy which came early in the late 100's and John fighting in his first letter.
When we compare the four gospels we have with the many Gnostic writings affected, so it is no wonder that they were not included. For here we encounter a very different Jesus than the four Gospels tell of. Here we are talking not about salvation from sin, but a new discovery and liberation from prison of the body. The Gnostic Gospels was about 150-300, in contrast to the four we have, all of which were in the first century.
Earlier one has dated the gospels from about 50-90. Markus is the oldest, John is the youngest. In recent times one has wanted to date them even earlier. Luke must have been written before the Roman destruction in 64, the Acts, which is "Volume II" in Luke's collected works, the agenda was revealed before it.
When Mark only reviews Caiaphas as "øversteprsten" without mentioning names, it may indicate that he wrote while Caiaphas was high priest, and he was from 18-37. So Mark was available before the year 37!
Matthew and John were apostles and eyewitnesses. St. Mark was Peter's interpreter and secretary, as the Gospel of Mark is actually Peter's Gospel. Whether we are here with øyenvitnekildringer, and better historical sources are not.
And Luke, the doctor, the scientist who has studied everything from the beginning, as he writes in the introduction to his Gospel:
There are many who have tried to give an account of what has happened among us, as we have it delivered by those who from the very first of the eyewitnesses and servants of the Word. Now I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided that I would write it down for you in context, most excellent Theophilus, that you can understand how reliable it is, what you have been taught in. (Luke 1,1 - 4)
The diploma Luke has given archaeologists, language historians and historians for its exact historical information, are outstanding.
Sir William Ramsay, probably the world's top archaeologist, said in his book St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (new ed. 1962) and The Bearing of Recent Discovery of the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) about how skeptical he was of Acts works when he arrived in Turkey in their younger years to dig out the biblical cities. In the course of 30-40 years of excavations and diligent use of Luke changed this view radically. He says: Luke should be placed among the world's foremost historians. And also: When it comes to credibility, no one surpasses Luke.
And historian and linguist Colin Hemer has dived deep into the second half of Acts and picked out 84 individual units Luke mentions - they may look like very subtle facts. Remember: it is exactly, is laglig for blow!
This is the historical and geographical details, the way his title of Roman officials, etc. These then analyzes the Hemer with surgical precision from what we know today. A items.: In Acts 19, during Paul's stay in Ephesus, Luke uses the word for governor in the majority, anthupatoi. Why on earth does he do it? It seems at first strange. It turns out that just at the time, in the year 54, reigned two governors at the same time.
Luke was with flying colors on all the 84 points!
And in the short time of Jesus was alive to the gospels were written down, it is not possible to create legends. For when life still people who remembered Jesus.
It would be as hopeless as if something were to write the following in a book about King Olaf: He was born without male participation. He was without sin. From time to time he took a trip up at the hospital, and healed all the sick. Once he was in Toten, people came from all over Mjøs area to hear him speak. They had to go forgotten to take food, but the king got five loaves and two pikes and mysteriously everyone was satisfied. There were 5,000 men, plus women and children.
Three days after he was dead, he was observed on Karl Johan. Over 500 people had seen him. Yes, most of them still alive.
Would anyone have believed this? No, because we remember King Olav. He never did anything like that.
It is interesting that when Paul must defend themselves against King Herod Agrippa II, he says of Jesus:
The King knows all these things, and to him I speak bluntly. I am convinced that none of this has passed him by, it's not done in a corner. (Acts 26:26)
And it is even more interesting how the king responds:
Agrippa said to Paul: "It is just before you persuade me to become a Christian." (Acts 26.28)

Thurs Bible translation tradition in Norway is short. The one and in my opinion the most reliable is the German who among other things. a 1930 translation is built and that's how I see it the best Bible we have in Norway. Then we have the one that builds on the King James translation the Bible God's word is translated from verse to verse, and that is one of the worst we have here in Norway.

We now have a brand new now in 2011 that among other things. To get Mary to be a young girl and not a virgin, in my opinion is very unnecessary to change, it says something about the Bible translation that does not lead God's people to come in terms of Bible-believing cabinet? Has not been read so much in it yet, but do not think it sets a new standard of God's word, but purely linguistic be good in terms of our language today?

Conclusion:

Support Smyrna Oslo and my service then there will be no way to wealth, Hallelujah! Did not know this, but there is still something in it. It needed some heavyweights also can go in and translate the Bible again that is in God's words and have rejected the Trinity and other unbiblical teaching. Can Hebrew and Greek, especially Greek as it is the New Testament are the most mistranslated and that we, as Gentile Christians build our lives and learning.

Nasty and hypocritical Christians, especially leaders!

No one wants to meet me in open debate on the net, but to call me up, send nasty mail, etc. can be many. Only Stålsett it when you want to serve the Lord, that we always go to victory in the Lord Jesus Christ!