Cross????

Originally posted by duecer
[b]Matthew 15:3 (New King James Version)

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? your text is a bad translation and taken out of context big difference between the two translations; tradition does not necessarily contradict God's word.


Mark 7: 13 (NKJ) 13 making the ...[text shortened]... unate outcome is often a mistranslation in a zealous attempt to prove doctrinal differences.

Does your translation use Jehovah's name in it? The original writings had it several thousand times. Just in the book of Psalms it was over 700 times. So maybe your translation is not correct?
And the type of TRADITIONS that these scriptures are talking about would be on a spiritual level. God hates man made traditions as they often burden his people and lead them to idolitry as what has happened to many religions in the world now.
And again I ask..why does anyone NEED a reminder of Jeus's sacrifice? Does no one out there have a memory?
That's like saying I want to keep the gun that was used to killed my best friend for giving his life for me and wear it around my neck and make many little imagies of it, kiss it everytime I see it and put it up on my walls, my church and I might as well hang one from the mirrow in my car too.
The only thing Jesus told any of his followers to do in remembrance of him was to observe the evening meal he had the night he was killed. Show me where anything else was told by anyone in the Bible for us to do or use in remembrance of Jesus's death? Or does the use of the cross come from man's made up TRADITIONS?

Originally posted by duecer

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?[/b] your text is a bad translation and taken out of context big difference between the two translations; tradition does not necessarily contradict God's word.


Mark 7: 13 (NKJ) 13 making the unate outcome is often a mistranslation in a zealous attempt to prove doctrinal differences.

beware of Bibles, like the NIV which has systematically removed the name of God and replaced it with nondescript inane terms like The Lord, which has led to confusion and an inability to distinguish between the Almighty and the created! Or versions named after a Scottish monarchy, whose very first page is to heap praise upon a mere mortal, and not a very moral one at that.

Originally posted by galveston75
Does your translation use Jehovah's name in it? The original writings had it several thousand times. Just in the book of Psalms it was over 700 times. So maybe your translation is not correct?
And the type of TRADITIONS that these scriptures are talking about would be on a spiritual level. God hates man made traditions as they often burden his people a ...[text shortened]... embrance of Jesus's death? Or does the use of the cross come from man's made up TRADITIONS?

uumm no, the original translation did not have the name Jehovah in it. Undertand? they used a tetragrammaton YHWH. Modern translations use LORD (also in caps) in place of that tetragrammaton. Yours is really a silly argument, no offense, but it is.

And again I ask..why does anyone NEED a reminder of Jeus's sacrifice? Does no one out there have a memory?
then why does your denomination pester people by going door to door? If everyone knows about the atonement then there would be no need to evangelize.

That's like saying I want to keep the gun that was used to killed my best friend for giving his life for me and wear it around my neck and make many little imagies of it, kiss it everytime I see it and put it up on my walls, my church and I might as well hang one from the mirrow in my car too. your points have been rebuttted numerous times by varying faith backgrounds, all of which have soundly refuted this silly argument...you do yourself an injustice by continuing to repeat a failed argument

The only thing Jesus told any of his followers to do in remembrance of him was to observe the evening meal he had the night he was killed. again you show a lack of biblical understanding. Christ said if you love me keep my commandment and love one another as I have loved you. I don't see a lot of that kind of love and compassion bearing fruit in your denomination, sorry but that's my take.

Show me where anything else was told by anyone in the Bible for us to do or use in remembrance of Jesus's death? Or does the use of the cross come from man's made up TRADITIONS? there was no provision for the use of the star of David, yet Jews display it prominently. Your denomination has a tradition that only the 144,000 may take communion, there is NO provision for only 144,000 recieving communion...none. That is a TRADITION that contradicts biblical teaching

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
beware of Bibles, like the NIV which has systematically removed the name of God and replaced it with nondescript inane terms like The Lord, which has led to confusion and an inability to distinguish between the Almighty and the created! Or versions named after a Scottish monarchy, whose very first page is to heap praise upon a mere mortal, and not a very moral one at that.

you will find annotated in those bibles that where it says lord, it is often capitalized LORD to represent the tetragrammaton YHWH. Otherwise the NIV is a solid translation and the translators and sources are well documented, also extremely important.

Originally posted by duecer
uumm no, the original translation did not have the name Jehovah in it. Undertand? they used a tetragrammaton YHWH. Modern translations use LORD (also in caps) in place of that tetragrammaton. Yours is really a silly argument, no offense, but it is.

And again I ask..why does anyone NEED a reminder of Jeus's sacrifice? Does no one out there have a memory? recieving communion...none. That is a [b]TRADITION that contradicts biblical teaching[/b]

uumm no, the original translation did not have the name Jehovah in it. Undertand? they used a tetragrammaton YHWH. Modern translations use LORD (also in caps) in place of that tetragrammaton. Yours is really a silly argument, no offence, but it is

on what authority have you removed the tetragrammaton and replaced it with the clearly inferior Lord, a Greek term, of no description, not even a name. What if we replaced Deucer with 'the person'? ( i was going to say the man, but could not bring myself to do it, considering, im da man!) It is unacceptable to have done so, for the name of God has certain meanings, which are not, i repeat are not, the same as the Lord. What is more, we have certain pronunciations of the divine name preserved in ancient names, EliJAH, for example, where we can draw inferences for the pronunciation of the divine name, in what it probably sounded like.

Originally posted by duecer
you will find annotated in those bibles that where it says lord, it is often capitalized LORD to represent the tetragrammaton YHWH. Otherwise the NIV is a solid translation and the translators and sources are well documented, also extremely important.

no its not, its a rubbish translation, cold and inaccurate. Its as bland as scampi and chips, with no salt, tarter sauce or lemon juice. It has systematically removed the divine name under what authority? a product of trinitarians whose main aim is to mar the distinction between the father and the son.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
uumm no, the original translation did not have the name Jehovah in it. Undertand? they used a tetragrammaton YHWH. Modern translations use LORD (also in caps) in place of that tetragrammaton. Yours is really a silly argument, no offence, but it is

on what authority have you removed the tetragrammaton and replaced it with the clearly inferior Lord, an draw inferences for the pronunciation of the divine name, in what it probably sounded like.

but what right do we change or translate any of the scriptures? that is the question you essentially asked there RC. It is in no way a slander to use the equivelant word as translated...and again, it is caps and annotated

edit: It is unacceptable to have done so says who? you?

Originally posted by duecer
but what right do we change or translate any of the scriptures? that is the question you essentially asked there RC. It is in no way a slander to use the equivelant word as translated...and again, it is caps and annotated

its not an equivalent, that is the point my illustrious friend, JHVH is a name, with significance and a meaning attached. THE divine name. If i change your details in your profile, without your permission, and pass it off as 'the person', am i not guilty of fraud and misrepresentation?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not an equivalent, that is the point my illustrious friend, JHVH is a name, with significance and a meaning attached. THE divine name.

nooo JHVH (or YHWH) is a tetragrammaton...not a name. Gods name was never meant to be written, if it were, then God who inspired all of the bible would have inspired the writer to write his name in full, get it?

Originally posted by duecer
but what right do we change or translate any of the scriptures? that is the question you essentially asked there RC. It is in no way a slander to use the equivelant word as translated...and again, it is caps and annotated

edit:[b] It is unacceptable to have done so says who? you?[/b]

Exactly. No human has the right to remove a name such as God's with mearly a title.
And I would think if your going to mess with one's name, God's would be the last to view in a casual way.
Rev 22: 18 & 19 should make one think seriously about his name being removed.

Originally posted by galveston75
Exactly. No human has the right to remove a name such as God's with mearly a title.
And I would think if your going to mess with one's name, God's would be the last to view in a casual way.
Rev 22: 18 & 19 should make one think seriously about his name being removed.

or added to, which may even be worse. At least in NIV and KJV they annotate and inform the reader of the YHWH

Originally posted by duecer
nooo JHVH (or YHWH) is a tetragrammaton...not a name. Gods name was never meant to be written, if it were, then God who inspired all of the bible would have inspired the writer to write his name in full, get it?

ohhhhhh nooooooooo, not only was it meant to be written, it was written in scripture, on the high priests head piece etc etc its in the earliest manuscripts, in the dead sea scrolls, which i have seen with my own eys. Yes it is in the form of the tertragrammaton, simply because the Jews did not right down vowels, never the less, when they saw it, they would immediately associate it with the name of God. Tell me, what name was Jesus referring to when he stated,

our father in heaven, hallowed be your name?

or

(John 17:26) . . .And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

god did inspire all the Bibles, its those fraudsters at the NIV that have removed it!

Originally posted by duecer
or added to, which may even be worse. At least in NIV and KJV they annotate and inform the reader of the YHWH

actually as you are aware the King James contains the name Jehovah in four places, written in the 1600s, the NIV has completely and systematically removed an reference to it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ohhhhhh nooooooooo, not only was it meant to be written, it was written in scripture, on the high priests head piece etc etc its in the earliest manuscripts, in the dead sea scrolls, which i have seen with my own eys. Yes it is in the form of the tertragrammaton, simply because the Jews dud not right down vowels, never the less, when they saw it, th ...[text shortened]... known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

they wrote all the vowels except the ones in the name of the Lord, but what authority does your transaltion include them? And how do we know that those vowels are the correct ones? we don't. No I'd have to say that criticizing a translation for substituting LORD (annotated) for YHWH is closer to the real meaning and intent than sacriligously writing Gods name...which is the height of arrogance

Originally posted by duecer
they wrote all the vowels except the ones in the name of the Lord, but what authority does your transaltion include them? And how do we know that those vowels are the correct ones? we don't. No I'd have to say that criticizing a translation for substituting LORD (annotated) for YHWH is closer to the real meaning and intent than sacriligously writing Gods name...which is the height of arrogance

how is it closer to the real meaning? its not even a name, why dont you get it, you have removed a name, the divine name and replaced it with a nondescript term, which has no relevance to the original meaning. the height of arrogance is to tamper with it, to remove it. 'hey i am the author of this book', 'oh right', 'wait a minute till i remove your name'.