Posted on 09/22/2016 7:57:02 PM PDT by marshmallow
GERMANY, September 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The German Bishops have presented a new “Unified Translation” of the Bible that follows a significant modernization of the language and will be binding for all German-speaking areas starting in 2017.
On Tuesday, the German Bishops Conference (DBK) presented in Fulda the fruit of many years of scientific work: a new edition of the so-called “Unified Translation" (Einheitsübersetzung) of the Bible into German. It’s called “unified” because, from the original published from 1962 onward, these editions are supposed to be used ecumenically, unifying Catholics and Protestants in Germany. The original aim, however, was thwarted in 2005 when Protestants reverted to the Luther translation.
The leader of the research project was the bishop (now emeritus) of Erfurt, Joachim Wanke, who explained that the new edition is a “moderate revision” of the older text. Wanke added that a translation is always also an interpretation. The new edition shows more “braveness” to present “biblical jargon,” he said, reported by kath.net.
According to Jewish tradition, the personal names of God cannot be pronounced, so “Yahweh” is substituted by “Lord” in the new edition. In fact, every paragraph has a change, explained Michael Theobald, president of the German Bible Association.
When the apostle Paul calls two new followers, they are not two men anymore, Andronicus and Junias; rather, a new discovery showed that apparently it was one man and one woman, hence Andronicus and Junia. This led to the discussion that the word “apostle” must be applied to women as well as men (Author’s note: In German, different genders of the word exist and usually gender-ideologists insist on using male and female forms).
Other changes are more ideological.
Most frightening is the change to the iconic Isaiah passage (7:14): “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”.....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
If I consider the equivalent of Bible School professors in the Gospel accounts trying to relate to the Messiah and His Apostles, P the Apostle Peter I am astounded at how some of them completely missed what the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was doing in the life of the Apostle Peter, as well as his brother Apostles. No, it would not matter had they studied Hebrew and Greek even more; they would still stumble over it.
The question is already answered in the Scriptures, and in history, for those who have faith to receive it.
Do you claim to be a Jew ?
Which re-formed religious movement (assumed to have started in the 16th Century) does your faith community come from ? Where is it in history ?
You lack authority, succession, and provenance.
I claim to be a born again Christian, saved by faith ALONE, not by baptism, good works and membership in any church.
If you want to get technical about it, however, you could say those of us who are saved by faith ALONE, are spiritual Jews, as opposed to lost church members, who I would say would be like some Jews, and other religions, who went about trying to establish their own righteousness. Romans 2:28-29 explain it rather well, for those of us who are saved by faith ALONE.
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
It comes called the NT church, which began with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture, but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which Rome presumes. And its history is that of spiritual descendants of Abraham in the general body of Christ for 2000 years, even some Caths, and before that even a great cloud of witnesses of like basic faith,
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham... So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Galatians 3:7,9)
Spiritually indeed, for all believers are Semites, without militating against the physically Jewish as being esp. beloved for their father's sake, with a promised collective repentance for the remnant that will be left.
Another mere assertion, as if the NT church in Scripture manifested a class of almost exclusively celibate men distinctively titled "priests" since their primary active function was that of offering up the "real" body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing it to the people in order to obtain spiritual life. All of which is never seen in the life of the NT church, Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels.
The question is already answered in the Scriptures, and in history, for those who have faith to receive it.
Yes, it takes faith in Rome since it is absent within the Scriptures where it ought to be seen.
That was simply not what i did, but merely referred to the the Peter of Scripture. Making it into a proper name was your doing, thereby reproving yourself.
Have you heard the Gospel of Grace yet?
A mere soliloquy. Again.
As noted by someone else, should you ask such a foolish question given the many names and titles your religion applies to address Mary despite that none of these are found in Scriptures?
Most of the time, I have a lot of difficulty following your logic, but if you are wondering what the names of God are, this might help you see His names. It's a bit long, but the names are right there at the beginning.
I’ve been looking for that link! Thanks for posting it ...
No problem bro. There are other links, that is just one of them. I just did a google search on it. God's names do not change from link to link, however. 😊😂😄😁🙂😀😂
I don’t think there were 70 Aramaic scholars available.
If you get “as close to the originals as possible”, you’ll find quite a few additions, deletions, transcription errors, and other such things.
Those books are probably pseudepigraphic, like most of the others.
No, you are believing in the wrong interpretation of the inspired words Jesus spoke to Peter in the hearing of the group, and that means you have been misdirected.
When you refuse to interpret the passage as the hearers would have understood, you will see that the grammar does not and cannot support your hypothesis.
If you keep on insisting, the result is that you are self-deluded and in denial of simple literal understanding of what Jesus said.
At the outset of Jesus' public ministry, He gave Simon bar Jonah the diminutive name "Kephas," only used twice in the OT to describe large stones or boulders. The only translation into Koine is that of John 1:42, Πέτρος (petros) which means the same as the Hebrew by definition, a boulder, incapable of supporting the extent of a whole house. In fact, the only use of petros in the NT was as Simon bar Jonah's alternative ego.
In comparison, the word πέτρα (petra), in every other place used in the NT, it has the sense of a broad expanse of granitic or sedimentary layers, an escarpment at least, and forming a whole mountain or range of mountains. To get a feel of this, refer to Jesus speaking in Matthew 7 of a clear literal example of a man building his house on a deep, wide rock expanse, not on top of a boulder. Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8 speak of a "rock of offence" a petra, where they cite Isaiah 8:14. There the "rock" exactly translated is:
H6697
צר / צוּר (Aramaic)
tsûr
BDB Definition:
1) rock, cliff (noun masculine)
. . 1a) rocky wall, cliff
. . 1b) rock (with flat surface)
. . 1c) block of stone, boulder
. . 1d) rock (specific)
. . 1e) rock (of God)
. . 1f) rock (of heathen gods)
. . 1g) Rock (noun proper deity)
In the figurative sense, as used in the references cited, and in Matthew 16:18, and anywhere in the whole Bible, whether "petra" or "tsur" it always refers to the Mighty, Everlasting, God only. That word, that term is reserved for God in Christ Alone, and never, no not ever describes or applies to the merits of any fallible, weak, sinning, human who must die physically for his(her) sins, bar none, and who cannot yet handle his own life, let alone the lives of others.
If you haven't yet got this, this is a deep spiritual thing shown to and believed by the faithful, spiritual human who believes in the Word of The God, and not in the circuitous reasonings and slippery advice of any fellow human deliberately or inadvertently rejecting The Spirit's counsel in that Word.
What Jesus is saying to Simon and His students is that He is the Everlasting God, a Mighty Fortress-bearing Foundation of Immovable aluminosilicate, to Whom in the Jewish Scriptures the word "Rock" is applied numerous times (I didn't count them, but finally had no need to, because of their multiplicity and emphasis) upon whom, figuratively speaking, His Church of living stones would be built. Peter, being one of the Twelve Apostles (11 plus Paul, not Matthias) would as mighty missionaries, serve as the great foundational ashlars, Peter being only one of them (Ephesians 2:20-22), with a few prophets like Jude, and James/Yakov, and Luke, and John Mark thrown in.
Only a complete dunce could possibly think that any human living in the Church/Grace Age, still in the process of sanctification but still not perfect, could bear the weight and the responsibility for its welfare. Now Peter might have thought that he could (they were still arguing heatedly about their pecking order, while Jesus was preparing for the Cross). And, don't forget, Jesus did not entrust His mother's care to Peter, No way for the guy who had just denied any association with Him six times between midnight and dawn-break before His slaughter.
Eh? Are you still there?
If they were sons of Joseph but not Mary, then how were tehy siblings of Jesus? (Unless Joseph was also his biological father.)
Greek was the lingua franca of the time. Most things were written in Greek.
Most of the disciples were illiterate. But whoever wrote teh various books of the Bible would probably hve written in Greek.
Meaning that, as any work we read in English by a non-English speaking author is a translation, the words of Jesus had to be translated before being transcribed, either by the authors or by those who were telling the stories orally before they got written down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.