didn't want to have to do this..........

[wfdfiremedic]

Here. For all those that feel that one translation is innerant.....compare the niv, esv, nlt, nasb, hscb, kjv, nkjv, etc to this.........................




SERIOUSLY. This may give you insight.


E. Examples of mistranslation within NWT in order to teach their that Jesus was created:
First and most obviously to anyone who has looked at the NWT is the appearance of JEHOVAH in the NT portion over two hundred times where the Greek text has KURIOS (LORD). The second way in which the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of text in which Jesus is called God (Isa 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Acts 20:28), of these, the NWT translates four so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1), and two so that he is "A god" or "god" (John 1:1, 18). The remaining three texts (Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20), are not mistranslated, but are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in a lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT translates texts that call Jesus God in such a way as to keep the text from making that identification!
Genesis 1:2 "Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force." The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Exodus 3:14 "I am" changed to "I shall prove to be." The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.
Numbers 1:52 "Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division." The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)
Isaiah 43:10 "Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none." The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)
Ecclesiastes 12:7 "The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns." The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Matthew 2:11 "Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it" The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)
Matthew 5:19 "Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven." The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.
Matthew 25:46 "Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off." The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.
Mark 1:4 "Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. " Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.
Luke 12:8 "Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me." The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.
Luke 23:43 'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me." Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.
John 1:1 "Word was God" changed to "Word was a god." The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.
John 1:12 "Believe" changed to "exercise faith." The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)
John 6:56 "Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me." The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")
John 8:58 "I am" changed to "I have been." Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.
John 14:14 "IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it."
"me" is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus. John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; "IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; "If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!
John 14:17 "Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it." The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.
John 17:5 "Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you." The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.
John 17:21 "Are in me" changed to "are in union with me." The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.
Acts 10:36 "Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]." The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)
Acts 20:28 They change "God purchased the church with His own blood" to God purchased the church with the blood of His son" Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood... the blood of Jesus... who is God!
Romans 2:29 "By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit." Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)
Rom 8:1 "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW. The NWT omits key words when to include them may contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Rom 8:1 "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW. This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that the JW's do not believe anyone can claim NOW to be free of condemnation.
Romans 8:23a "Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit." This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.
Romans 8:23b "The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom." This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

 

[webdog]

The "enter" key and paragraphs are your friend Please put a few more spaces in your posts. My eyes feel like

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Romans 8:28 "All things" changed to "all his works." The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. This implies that God does not work ALL things together for the good of those that love God, but only those things which he himself does, over which he has control.
Romans 8:29 "Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition." The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.
Romans 9:5 "Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever." The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.
Romans 10:13 "Lord" changed to "Jehovah." This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.
Romans 13:1 "Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God." Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.
1 Corinthians 6:19 "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit." To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.
1 Corinthians 10:4 "The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ." The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."
1 Corinthians 12:11 "As he determines" changed to "as it wills." The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.
1 Corinthians 14:14-16 "Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit." Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.
The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "SPIRIT" to "[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 "the Father of spirits" (or the spirits) becomes "the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE." In Gal. 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW." Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" (or more literally, not having spirit") is rendered "NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY" (Jude 19).
1 Corinthians 15:2 "By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved." Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.
Galatians 6:18 "Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]." Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.
Philippians 1:23 "To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ." Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).
In Phil 1:23-24 several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby also the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with added words in brackets so you can see here) "I am under pressure from [THESE] two things; [BUT WHAT] I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, [TO BE SURE], is far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions indicate here clearly change the meaning so as to avoid the test's implication that Paul would be with Christ after death. Some of the additions in brackets in the NWT so clearly change the meaning it is a wonder that more JW's don't question them? In 1Cor 14:12-16 the phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[GIFT OF THE] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word "MY" is also added in brackets before "MIND" twice in verse 15 but not before SPIRIT. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" (or "my spirit" and "my mind" NASB) is changed to "the [GIFT OF THE] spirit" and [MY] mind."
Phil 2:6 "Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself" (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to "although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.


Col 1:16-20 the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek Awful embarrassing for Jw’s to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw’s attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!
The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.
Colossians 1:19 "His fullness" changed to "fullness." The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.
Also notable is Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders "ALL FULLNESS" is ambiguous, whereas "ALL THE FULLNESS" clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Col 2:6-12 Again, in Col 2:6-12 "IN HIM" and "IN WHOM" (en auto, en ho) becomes "IN UNION WITH HIM" (v.6) "IN HIM" (V.V. 7,9) "BY MEANS OF HIM" (V. 10) and "BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM" (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes "IN RELATION TO" so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven" (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).
Colossians 2:9 "The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality." The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.
I Timothy 4:1 "The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance." This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".
Titus 2:13 "Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus." Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)
Hebrews 1:6 "But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' ." (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions, The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship". This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word "worship" (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word "obeisance" to complete the deception of new converts.
Hebrews 1:8 "Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne." The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.
Hebrews 9:14 "The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit." Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.
Hebrews 12:9 "Father of our spirits" changed to "Father of our spiritual life." Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.
Hebrews 12:23 "The spirits of righteous men" changed to "the spiritual lives of righteous ones." This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.
Hebrews 12:28 "We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom." An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.
1 Peter 1:11 "Spirit of Christ in them was pointing" changed to "the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ." Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.
I Peter 3:18-19 "By the Spirit, through whom" changed to "in the spirit. In this [state]." Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.
1 John 4:1-6 "Spirit" changed to "inspired expression" Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God" (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that "INSPIRED EXPRESSION" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as "SPIRIT" in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).

The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".
Jude 19 "Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality." Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.
Revelation 3:14 "Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God." The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

In conclusion, for those that feel the niv, hcsb, nasb, esv etc is inferior to the KJV....please show me why. Look at this translation and tell me the NIV, HCSB, NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT doesn't refute such.

Amen!

 

[webdog]

Was that all your work, I didn't see any references given in the 4 minutes between my posts

 

[wfdfiremedic]

No that is not my work. It was pulled from http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

 

[wfdfiremedic]

The point in my posting is that I can prove such doctrine completely false with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NLT etc. So, to argue over KJV vs other bible is ludicrous in my opinion. We need to fight against those bibles that deny deity of Christ|!!!


Amen!

 

[Trotter]

The point in my posting is that I can prove such doctrine completely false with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NLT etc. So, to argue over KJV vs other bible is ludicrous in my opinion. We need to fight against those bibles that deny deity of Christ|!!!


Amen!

I can definitely "Amen!" that, my friend. However, it does make it hard to do when some of our own are attacking both us and the very word of God we carry as not really being the word of God. Dissension in the ranks is much more effective a weapon than a frontal assault, and our adversary has seen to it that there are plenty among us who would rather preach a man-made doctrine than to preach the gospel.

 

[Japheth10]

No that is not my work. It was pulled from http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

Well,put it back!

 

[Onlybygrace]

lol....this be true, even if I was seeing and original inerrant manuscript at this point I would still be confused!

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Well,put it back!

Are you saying the NWT is correct?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Here. For all those that feel that one translation is innerant.....compare the niv, esv, nlt, nasb, hscb, kjv, nkjv, etc to this.........................

How did all that information disprove that "one translation" (KJV?) is not inerrant?

Also, just because the NIV et al are better in these particular instances than the NWT, that alone doesn't even prove that they are themselves always reliable translations.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Are you saying the NWT is correct?

You seem to feel that literal is best. Therefore, wouldn't you prefer the NWT's rendering of stauros (Strong's #4716) as "torture stake" rather than most others versions use of "cross" (causing most people to think of a 'Latin Cross').

 

[wfdfiremedic]

My point is simply that one can utilize a number of translations to disprove the NWT etc. I have seen posts and websites stating that the NIV and other new versions are the same as the NWT. That is false.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

You seem to feel that literal is best. Therefore, wouldn't you prefer the NWT's rendering of stauros (Strong's #4716) as "torture stake" rather than most others versions use of "cross" (causing most people to think of a 'Latin Cross').

They render stauros as torture stake because they believe the cross was adopted by Christians from pagan backgrounds. They feel that the cross represents the symbol of the "god" tamuz. They also quote nt text where it states that anyone who is "hung on a tree" is cursed. Therefore, they claim it is a stake. However, if one studies Roman crucifixion, they will note that indeed Romans did utilize various forms of "crosses" and often they required the individual to carry the cross-member of the cross to the crucifixion.

 

[franklinmonroe]

My point is simply that one can utilize a number of translations to disprove the NWT etc. I have seen posts and websites stating that the NIV and other new versions are the same as the NWT. That is false.

In my experience, when the comment is made that modern Bible versions (including the NWT with the NIV and others) "are the same" it is a statement concerning their underlying Greek texts; which is essentially true. It seems to be offered as a feeble attempt of 'guilt-by-association'. Some one would have to be very oblivious to think that a widely popular evangelical version is actually teaching the same things as a purely sectarian version.

 

[franklinmonroe]

They render stauros as torture stake because they believe the cross was adopted by Christians from pagan backgrounds. They feel that the cross represents the symbol of the "god" tamuz. They also quote nt text where it states that anyone who is "hung on a tree" is cursed. Therefore, they claim it is a stake. However, if one studies Roman crucifixion, they will note that indeed Romans did utilize various forms of "crosses" and often they required the individual to carry the cross-member of the cross to the crucifixion.

But we don't really know for certain that it was a 'cross'; Jesus/Simon could have been carrying a veritcal post (to be inserted into a prearranged hole). Are we allowing popular images (Hollywood, etc.) to affect our perception? Why not be less specific in the translation?

So, now you would prefer a less literal translation because of external influences beyond the text itself? Should other word choices be affected because heretical groups make certain claims, or that there may be some related secular historical information?

 

[HankD]

The problem is ours not God's, either due to scribal errors or misinterpretation.

I have a theory that if we put the time, energy and resource into the historical, anthropological and archeological restoration of the Word of God to its original state for propogation into the cosmos its as we do on relatively frivolous things ("sports" for a singular instance - 200 billion per annum and climbing, entertainment [theater, cable TV, internet, etc] for another) with prayer added on top of that expenditure of resources, God would see our change of priorities and grant us His written original language Word "purified in a furnace of fire seven times".

Even at that the misinterpretation of His Word would exist until He returns.

HankD