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 ...
Have you not learned yet that context is key to understanding a passage?
Who cares... unless you want to make her into some kind of goddess?
Jesus, Jesus, and Jesus
John 14:6
Philippians 2:9
Romans 10:9
Cousins, cousins, everywhere ...
Only Mary and John were at the foot of the cross??
Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. John 19:25 NASB
You have read the account....right?
lions and tigers and bears on my!
Hey, you gotta do you own homework!
You are so amusing. You claim you belong to no church, nor denomination, and you cherry-pick the “bible” of your choosing. Context appears to be adverse to you
Once again, Church of Me.
“[41] And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, [42] And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, [43] And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. [44] And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’ s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. [45] And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.”
When they “returned”; not “during their return”.
Where were all his so-called "cousins" who would be obligated to take care of their family member (Mary)? He gave the care of Mary over to John because he was there and Jesus knew he could be trusted. It's really that simple.
Jesus is the rock on which His church is built, not Peter. Then you have James, the brother of Jesus, who became a believer and who was the head of the church in Jerusalem. There were a lot of people gathered in the house at Pentecost as well as HUNDREDS who witnessed the resurrected Christ. Do you think the Holy Spirit should have identified everyone that was there? Take it up with Him!
Peter means “rock”.
Peter is a piece of THE rock which is Jesus Christ. Peter's profession of faith - that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God - is what Christ's church is built upon, NOT a man who couldn't even bring himself to admit he was with Jesus when asked by a little girl and certainly not on anyone thought to be future "Peters". The foundation is Christ, the Apostles (all of them) were pillars and each believer is a living stone being built up into that spiritual house of God.
And when the days were past, they were returning, but The Boy Yeshua had remained in Jerusalem and Yoseph and his mother did not know it.Aramaic Bible in plain English
After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. HCSB
And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. KJV
You've already shown you don't know the difference between John the Baptist and the Apostle
Now you show you don't understand this text.
. You're starting to remind me of another former poster. Do you play chess with pigeons?
No, now you’re making stuff up. Jesus never said Peter was a piece of rock. As a matter fact, Christ renamed Simon as Peter, His rock.
It’s even more amusing that you quote different protestant bibles to support your fabrications.
No, unless you're a pigeon.
I'M making stuff up??? Jesus IS the rock (petra) - plenty of Scriptural proof for that - and Peter is a little rock or a piece of the rock (petros). Peter, as did the rest of the Apostles were commissioned/sent by Jesus to win souls to Christ, disciple other leaders and help build up local assemblies throughout the known world, and they did. I hope you realize that if you really believe it is Peter on whom the church of Christ is built, then there would no longer be a foundation once Peter was martyred. You cannot claim that Peter somehow passed down his "rockness" to others because Jesus did not give him that power. Only Jesus is the true rock of our faith. I worship him, not Peter.
Yes. I've already told you that. How many times must I repeat myself?
Christ did not entrust His church to Peter. If He did, He would not have raised up Paul and the other disciples and He would have instructed the other disciples to be in submission to Peter.
Why did Christ entrust His Mother to St. John, but His Church to St. Peter? And where were all these so-called "siblings" at the Pentecost or the Ascension?
John 7:1-5 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand.
So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For not even his brothers believed in him.
I already told you what I thought about why His own brothers were not with Him at the cross. Reread the post.
How ludicrous.
Do you think Jesus' parents thought He was irresponsible and untrustworthy that at age 12 He couldn't have been left to spend time with His friends and be trusted to stay with the group?
In that culture, he was on the border of being called a man. He had better have been responsible and mature.
I would hazard a guess that 12 year olds in those days were a tad more mature then they are today.
Probably not.
Follow the story. The order of the events should be clear to you regardless of the translation.
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.