Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   List of twelve major errors of bible translation
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 1 of 6 (509600)
05-22-2009 5:42 PM


hello,
for the Bible Study
one of twelve major errors of the protestant bible translation.
A Distinct Difference between Hair
and the Principal part of the Head [that comes before the hair],
Scripture does not say that a woman’s long hair should be covered, but that she ought to reclothe or cover the principal part of her head which is not the hair.
The part of her head that is already covered naturally by her glory [her long hair] does not need to be covered since her long hair is given to her for a natural veil.
There are clues that the part of her head that ought to be covered or reclothed with a Sign of Yhvh’s power is a separate place for identification and for the Name that remains eternally: A separate place that being the principal part of her head, which is not the hair, is precisely the part of her head that is naturally bare skin. And if she does not cover or reclothe the principal part of her head, which is naturally shorn, the eternal Word points out:
Let also [in like manner] her hair be shorn: let the part that is already covered by her natural veil [the long hair of her glory] be shorn similarly.
Let not only the part which the Word instructs her to cover be shorn [bare skin],
but also the part that is already naturally covered with the hair,
for that is even all one and the same as having her entire head shaved.
also be shorn: Let her hair be like the naturally shorn part that is already bare skin = the principal part of the head that goes before the hair.
since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. —— Holman Standard.
for that is even all one as if she were shaved. —— Webster.
for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. —— American Standard
1. -- woman is by nature man’s glory.
2. -- woman with her forehead uncovered = nothing changes: her forehead being uncovered is still highlighting nothing new under the sun: that she is just man’s glory. But the word of Yhvh is Yhvh’s glory and splendor of white Light; so any little part of Yhvh’s word that she recites or prophesies is and will always be incompatible to man’s glory, AND FOR THIS REASON ought the woman to have a Sign of Yhvh’s Glory on her forehead, because it is over angels. That is: The Glory and Authority of Yhvh’s Word that she recites or prophesies is above and beyond: it is over any man’s glory, and it is over any authority of angels.
through the Bible,
lef. The head of every man is JEHAVH’—SHUA [The living Word of I AM],
a woman's head is her spouse, but Yhvh is the head of the living Word [that a woman comes to recite or prophesy]
Beth. Every man who recites or prophesies with his forehead covered dishonors his head,
but every woman who recites or prophesies Yhvh's word with her forehead uncovered dishonors her head, for that is even all one and the same as having her entire head shaved.
Gmel. For if a woman will not cover [or reclothe] her forehead, then let her hair be shorn also [in like manner] But if it be a shame to a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, let her wear the [forehead] covering’.
Dlet. For a man ought not to cover his forehead,
because he is a glory made [for I AM] to be reclothed by Yhvh’s presence, but woman is a glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
H. For this reason [when prophesying or reciting the Word of I AM]
ought the woman to reclothe her forehead with a Sign of Power [of Yhvh]
because [of the authority of the Word she recites] it is over angels.
Vav. Thus in Yhvh both are put in subjection under Yhvh's Spirit only:
neither is the spirit of man bond to woman
neither is woman put in subjection under a spirit of man.
For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman,
and in all things [of the Spirit] both are of Yhvh's power only.
Zyin. Let every woman judge by herself if it is proper for her to prophesy or recite Yhvh's Word with her forehead uncovered. Does not nature itself instruct you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For the long hair was given to her for a veil.
Spontaneously: No bondage, but freedom to remain with total fidelity to Yhvh’s words.
Ephesians *:**,
Submitting yourselves [spontaneously] to one another,
let that submission be in the love for Elyon,
Ephesians *:**,
Wives,
submit yourselves [spontaneously] to your husbands in fidelity [aemunah] to Yhvh,
because the husband being the head of the wife,
Yhvh's Word is the Salvation of her head,
and Yhvh in person is the Savior of her entire body also.
Ephesians *:**,
And as the gatherings of people are under the authority of YHVH's Word -- [Yhvh'shua],
so let the wives be under that same authority also before their husbands in all things.
Weymouth NT -- 'And just as the church submits to christ women should be entirely submissive to their husbands.'
[while using the word 'entirely' which means 'completely: spiritual and physically', Is Weymouth's believed translation not saying that a woman's submission should be also spiritual before a spirit of man, which is the same as one paying spiritual reverence unto men's words?]
Beth-Tzshfir
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : simplify
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : topic title

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-22-2009 7:44 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 6 (509610)
05-22-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldenlightArchangel
05-22-2009 5:42 PM


What has this to do with the creation/evolution debate?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-22-2009 5:42 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-25-2009 5:11 PM Admin has replied

goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 3 of 6 (509873)
05-25-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-22-2009 7:44 PM


quote:
What has this to do with the creation/evolution debate?
This thread might expose the mutual indifference of religion, and of the ones of faith and belief, with regard to the one truth that their bible and their interpretation has nothing to do with the Scripture as originally written.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-22-2009 7:44 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-25-2009 9:29 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 6 (509888)
05-25-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by goldenlightArchangel
05-25-2009 5:11 PM


How would this thread have any bearing on the creation/evolution debate? It's okay if the topic is only peripherally connected, but I can't see any connection at all.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-25-2009 5:11 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-26-2009 4:17 PM Admin has not replied

goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 5 of 6 (510003)
05-26-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
05-25-2009 9:29 PM


Creationism is an interpretation of man,
because it is not based on scripture as originally written.
[Even the common generic word elohim--god(s) has been proved to be a mistranslation imposed in the mastercopies by the Scribes of early Yudaism],
I agree this thread does not lead to a solution to that debate.
It is just about one from a List of twelve major errors of the protestant bible translation,
and the only possible bearing of this thread on the creation/evolution debate is that a list of twelve proven errors of the protestant bible translation becomes evidence that creationism will always depend on how man does interpret the adulterated bible without the scriptures as originally written.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-25-2009 9:29 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 6 (510079)
05-27-2009 8:16 AM


Thread copied to the List of twelve major errors of bible translation thread in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024