/ Forside / Interesser / Andre interesser / Religion / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Religion
#NavnPoint
mblm 1770
summer 1170
ans 1142
JanneP 1010
e.p. 880
Rellom 850
Teil 728
refi 645
o.v.n. 630
10  molokyle 587
Arkæologi - Hvornår forsvandt Pagtens Ark ~
Fra : Jesus-loves-you


Dato : 14-02-09 10:51

Æh ...

I dag sidder jeg og læser i min andagt fra www.blr.dk og teksten er fra GT's
profetiske Jeremias' Bog.

Som optakt har blr. skrevet en lille indledning, hvori der bl.a. står:

(Kilde: Bibelnøglen, 1, januar februar marts 2009, modt. 13 dec 08)

=== citat start ===

(side 20)

Jeremias' historie spænder sig over en periode på 40 år fra hans kaldelse
til profet ... (ca. 627 f.Kr.) til Jerusalems fald i år 587 f. Kr. ...

=== citat slut ====


Endvidere nævnes det ved en tidligere lejlighed (i selvsamme hæfte), at ...

=== citat start ===

(side 12)

Det andet tempel

.... pagtens ark, som var forsvundet ved Jerusalems fald og aldrig siden hen
er blevet fundet. ...

=== citat slut ====


Dagens andagtstekst (fra begyndelsen af Jeremias Bog, som er på 52 kapitler)
forekom mig derfor interessant, idet der her står, at ...

... "de gode gamle dage",
da Herrens ark endnu var i jeres besiddelse.
... Arken er borte -

(Jer. 3,16 - Bibelen på hverdagsdansk)

Umiddelbart får man jo det indtryk, når man læser teksten, at Pagtens Ark
(Herrens ark) *allerede* ér væk!

Og da teksten omhandler en tid FØR Jerusalems fald i år 587 f. Kr, melder
spørgsmålet sig jo derfor:

Hvornår forsvandt Pagtens Ark ?


Taler profeten igennem nogle "briller", hvor virkeligheden bliver beskrevet
udfra fremtiden; altså en såkaldt profeti, og det herigennem også
tilkendegives, at Pagtens Ark vil gå tabt for evigt (når den tid kommer;
givetvis år 587 f. Kr.)?


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8427 news:gn644i$19e1$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8428



 
 
Poul E. Jørgensen (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Poul E. Jørgensen


Dato : 14-02-09 11:59

"Jesus-loves-you" <John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> skrev i meddelelsen
news:gn646h$19e5$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk...
> ... "de gode gamle dage",
> da Herrens ark endnu var i jeres besiddelse.
> ... Arken er borte -
>
> (Jer. 3,16 - Bibelen på hverdagsdansk)
>
> Umiddelbart får man jo det indtryk, når man læser teksten, at Pagtens Ark
> (Herrens ark) *allerede* ér væk!


Står der virkelig det?
I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
" v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger Herren,
skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal tænke på den,
ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der skal ikke laves nogen
anden. v17 Da skal Jerusalem kaldes Herrens trone, og alle folk skal samles
i Herrens navn i Jerusalem." (Citat slut).

Vulgata har det samme. Luther tilsvarende. Så dit citat kan ikke stamme
derfra.

--
Poul E. Jørgensen

Fjern de to A'er hvis du svarer per e-mail.
Remove the two A's when replying by e-mail.


Jesus-loves-you (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesus-loves-you


Dato : 14-02-09 13:07

"Poul E. Jørgensen" skrev
news:d22d7$4996a409$5b96e0a8$11129@news.jay.net
>
> > ... "de gode gamle dage",
> > da Herrens ark endnu var i jeres besiddelse.
> > ... Arken er borte -
> >
> > (Jer. 3,16 - Bibelen på hverdagsdansk)
> >
> > Umiddelbart får man jo det indtryk, når man læser teksten, at Pagtens
> > Ark (Herrens ark) *allerede* ér væk!
>
>
> Står der virkelig det?

Ja!

> I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
> " v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger
> Herren, skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal tænke
> på den, ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der skal ikke laves
> nogen anden. ...


Heri kommer den *selvsamme* mening frem, for det har vel intet formål at
lave en anden ark, når/hvis man allerede har den forrige, ikke sandt ?


.... v17 Da skal Jerusalem kaldes Herrens trone, og alle folk skal samles
> i Herrens navn i Jerusalem." (Citat slut).
>
> Vulgata har det samme. Luther tilsvarende. Så dit citat kan ikke stamme
> derfra.


Vedr. Bibelen-på-hverdagsdansk ...

7722 news:g6hh4b$1hj6$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
>
> Bibeloversætter Iver Larsen, Bibelen på Hverdagsdansk svarer:
[ ... ]
> En ting er, hvad der står i grundteksten, en helt anden ting er, hvad
> meningen bag grundteksten er. For at forstå det er man nødt til at gå bag
> om teksten ind i hebraisk kultur, tankegang og talemåder.


I den autoriserede oversættelse fra 1931 står der:

[Jeremias kapittel 3]

(Profeti om Efraims og Judas frelse fra landflygtigheden, 14-18

Og når I ... (kommer tilbage fra landflygtigheden) ...
... skal de ikke mere
tale om HERRENS pagts ark, og tan-
ken om den skal ikke mere opkomme
i noget hjerte; de skal ikke mere
komme den i hu eller savne den, og
en ny skal ikke laves.

(Jer. 3,16)

I King James (som er en ret præcis oversættelse fra hebraisk) står der:

... The ark of the covenant ...
... neither shall that be done any more.

(Jer. 3,16)

-

Men tilbage til selve spørgsmålet:

Hvornår forsvandt Pagtens Ark egentlig, historisk set ?


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8431 news:4996ad72$0$90271$14726298@news.sunsite.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8432



Jan Kronsell (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Kronsell


Dato : 14-02-09 14:24

Jesus-loves-you wrote:
> "Poul E. Jørgensen" skrev
> news:d22d7$4996a409$5b96e0a8$11129@news.jay.net
>>
>>> ... "de gode gamle dage",
>>> da Herrens ark endnu var i jeres besiddelse.
>>> ... Arken er borte -
>>>
>>> (Jer. 3,16 - Bibelen på hverdagsdansk)
>>>
>>> Umiddelbart får man jo det indtryk, når man læser teksten, at
>>> Pagtens Ark (Herrens ark) *allerede* ér væk!
>>
>>
>> Står der virkelig det?
>
> Ja!
>
>> I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
>> " v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger
>> Herren, skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal
>> tænke på den, ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der
>> skal ikke laves nogen anden. ...
>
>
> Heri kommer den *selvsamme* mening frem, for det har vel intet formål
> at lave en anden ark, når/hvis man allerede har den forrige, ikke
> sandt ?
>
Efter hvad jeg har læst, er denne passage skrevet efter at Jerusalem er
ødelagt og under det babylonske fangenskab, som en trøst til de jøder, der
begræd tabet af arken.Så mon ikke arken faktsik forsvandt på det tidspunkt -
hvis den nogensinde har eksisteret som en fyisisk genstand.

I øvrigt er Biblen, som andre steder, også lidt underligt selvmodsigende i
beskrivelsen af arken. Både babylonerne og tildligere filistrene havde held
med at stjæle arken, og det voldte dem tilsyneladende ingen problemer, men
da en jøde rørte ved arken i et forsøg på at redde den fra at falde på
jorden, blev han straks slået ihjel af Gud for sin synd.

Jan



Jan Kronsell (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Kronsell


Dato : 14-02-09 14:30

Jeg skulle måske tilføje at i følge 2. Makkabæerbog, var det faktisk
Jeremias selv, der skjulte arken, så Nebukadnezars folk ikke skulle få fat i
den. 2. Makkabæerbog, 2. kapitel. vers 4 til 7.

Jan



Jesus-loves-you (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesus-loves-you


Dato : 14-02-09 17:08

"Jan Kronsell" skrev

Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009, CET 14:24, GMT 13:24
news:4996c5e9$0$56769$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk

[ ... file 8432 ... ]

> >>> ... "de gode gamle dage",
> >>> da Herrens ark endnu var i jeres besiddelse.
> >>> ... Arken er borte -
> >>>
> >>> (Jer. 3,16 - Bibelen på hverdagsdansk)
> >>>
> >>> Umiddelbart får man jo det indtryk, når man læser teksten, at
> >>> Pagtens Ark (Herrens ark) *allerede* ér væk!
[ ... ]
> Efter hvad jeg har læst, er denne passage skrevet efter at Jerusalem er
> ødelagt ...


Noget tilsvarende har jeg hørt, og denne logiske forklaringsmodel skal vi
nok ikke helt kimse af; idet ... (input memory from) ...

8259 news:gj2d4h$9cq$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
>
> From: "Jesus-loves-you"
> 6869 news:oBfui.11$av2.10@news.get2net.dk
> >
> > Mit navn er fx. kejser Napoleon ... (så svært var det åbenbart heller ej
> > at lyve) ...
>
>
> Som tidligere sagt - en kildeteksts *postulat* er ikke i sig
> selv tilstrækkelig grundlag for bevisførelse.


Herefter skrev Jan Kronsell følgende:

> ... og under det babylonske fangenskab, som en trøst til de jøder, der
> begræd tabet af arken.Så mon ikke arken faktsik forsvandt på det
> tidspunkt - hvis den nogensinde har eksisteret som en fyisisk genstand.
>
> I øvrigt er Biblen, som andre steder, også lidt underligt selvmodsigende
> i beskrivelsen af arken. Både babylonerne og tildligere filistrene havde
> held med at stjæle arken, og det voldte dem tilsyneladende ingen
> problemer, men da en jøde rørte ved arken i et forsøg på at redde den fra
> at falde på jorden, blev han straks slået ihjel af Gud for sin synd.


samt ...

Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009, CET 14:30, GMT 13:30
news:4996c75f$0$56791$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk
>
> Jeg skulle måske tilføje at i følge 2. Makkabæerbog, var det faktisk
> Jeremias selv, der skjulte arken, så Nebukadnezars folk ikke skulle få fat
> i den. 2. Makkabæerbog, 2. kapitel. vers 4 til 7.


Ja, det har du da - for øvrigt - ret i. Disse bøger er dog skrevet *efter*
Jerusalems fald!


Hmm ... (kildetekst) ...

Så allerede dengang (på Makkabæernes tid) har Arken været "efterlyst",
hvilket i sog selv *indkredser* tidshorizonten!


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8433 news:4996e328$0$90273$14726298@news.sunsite.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8434



Ulvir (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Ulvir


Dato : 14-02-09 15:26

"Jesus-loves-you" <John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4996b3f2$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

> I King James (som er en ret præcis oversættelse fra hebraisk) står der..

Den er oversat fra både græsk og hebraisk. Og er behæftet med rigtig mange
oversættelses fejl..

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word
translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former
condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in
opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the
connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the
connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew
is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal
represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained
in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating
the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and
new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to,
[false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not
live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since
Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following
false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning"
for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter
destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in
Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye
therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature."
Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say
"there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds
it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and
pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came
when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the
first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on
Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ."
The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among
men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on
earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's
#3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We
are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water.
Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism,
but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be
"through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not
proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being
ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered
"Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as
Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them
that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the
power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2
Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then
baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of
salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of
salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their
day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time:
but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all
evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words
are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath
to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin
that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness
in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in
one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern
translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate
to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all
the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that
the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to
"they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake
of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are
[correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were
mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years
previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and
night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same
lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand
years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew
and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English.
Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the
practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language
more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the
added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the
translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original
Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect
and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another
instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in
italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact
the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John
8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original
Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary,
while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible
for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is,
Christians are now saints.

1 Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It
should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but
[the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized
word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these
verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy
days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the
judging.

1 Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

2 Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of
righteousness.

1 John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also"
in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the
original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went
straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation
marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say
unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not
be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in
the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a
missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no
comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the
first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it
should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene. . ."




Jesus-loves-you (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesus-loves-you


Dato : 14-02-09 17:09

"Ulvir" skrev
news:4996d474$0$56773$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk

[ ... file 8432 ... ]

> > I King James (som er en ret præcis oversættelse fra hebraisk) står der..
>
> Den er oversat fra både græsk og hebraisk. Og er behæftet med rigtig
> mange oversættelses fejl..
>
> Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:
>
> Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The
> word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a
> former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
>
> Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in
> opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the
> connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
>
> Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the
> connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew
> is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal
> represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our
> sins.
>
> Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior
> explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute
> is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their
> hearts.
>
> 2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."
>
> Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and
> new earth . . . ."
>
> Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over
> to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should
> not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that
> since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by
> following false man made customs and laws.
>
> Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning"
> for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.
>
> Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter
> destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used
> in Zechariah 14:11.
>
> Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye
> therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature."
> Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should
> say "there should no flesh be saved alive."
>
> Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds
> it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and
> pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came
> when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
>
> Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the
> first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on
> Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ."
> The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
>
> Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace
> among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be
> peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.
>
> Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo,
> Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by
> comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!
>
> John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water.
> Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism,
> but only thorough immersion in water.
>
> John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be
> "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did
> not proclaim his law, but God's Law.
>
> John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper
> being ended" (KJV).
>
> Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered
> "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as
> Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
>
> 1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them
> that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is
> the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2
> Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."
>
> 1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized
> for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then
> baptized for the hope of the dead?"
>
> 2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of
> salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of
> salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their
> day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
>
> 1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little
> time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."
>
> 1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of
> all evil . . . ."
>
> Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two
> words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
>
> Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath
> to the people of God."
>
> Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So
> Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without
> sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."
>
> 1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original.
> "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
> the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear
> witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
> three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original
> manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired
> addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity
> doctrine.
>
> Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all
> the firstfruits.
>
> Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that
> the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back
> to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.
>
> Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake
> of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are
> [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet
> were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000
> years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day
> and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into
> the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a
> thousand years previously.
>
> Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."
>
> Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
>
> No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew
> and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English.
> Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the
> practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original
> language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same.
> Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At
> other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings
> added errors instead.
>
> In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original
> Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.
>
> We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is
> incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more
> appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am
> he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus,
> completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I
> AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
>
> In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original
> Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through
> Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.
>
> Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS
> possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!
>
> Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is,
> Christians are now saints.
>
> 1 Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear.
> It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
> but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."
>
> Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized
> word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these
> verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the
> holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do
> the judging.
>
> 1 Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the
> original.
>
> 2 Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of
> righteousness.
>
> 1 John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also"
> in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the
> original Greek.
>
> Punctuation Problems
>
> Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went
> straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have
> punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto
> him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
> The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor
> would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was
> resurrected far into the future.
>
> Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is
> a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no
> comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the
> first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus,
> it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week
> he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. . ."


Okay. Så fik vi også lige dét, sat på plads (skønt det ikke inkluderede
Jeremias Bog og det aktuelle skriftsted) !

Øh ...

Tak for dit indlæg, Ulvir ...

-

Absolutely internal nonsens-talking:

Husk - for øvrigt - at Kelvin IKKE skal bemævnes i grader ...

And women !

Yes, that's correct, (Life of) Brian ...


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8434 news:4996ec56$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8435



Ulvir (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Ulvir


Dato : 14-02-09 17:23

"Jesus-loves-you" <John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4996ec8e$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

> Okay. Så fik vi også lige dét, sat på plads (skønt det ikke inkluderede
> Jeremias Bog og det aktuelle skriftsted) !

Sandt nok- det er bare det at bogen består af oversættelse på oversættelse..
med en hel del fejl og misfortolkninger som følge deraf. Som historisk
kilde er den ikke meget bevendt.

> Øh ...
>
> Tak for dit indlæg, Ulvir ...





Poul E. Jørgensen (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Poul E. Jørgensen


Dato : 14-02-09 16:41

"Jesus-loves-you" <John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4996b3f2$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Poul E. Jørgensen" skrev
>> I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
>> " v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger
>> Herren, skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal tænke
>> på den, ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der skal ikke
>> laves
>> nogen anden. ...
>
>
> Heri kommer den *selvsamme* mening frem, for det har vel intet formål at
> lave en anden ark, når/hvis man allerede har den forrige, ikke sandt ?


Jeg forstår ikke at du læser Jer. 3, 16-17 sådan. Lave en anden ark?
Der tales om en fremtid, Gudsrigets fremtid, det ny Jerusalems fremtid, hvor
arken er overflødig ("ingen skal savne den").

--
Poul E. Jørgensen

Fjern de to A'er hvis du svarer per e-mail.
Remove the two A's when replying by e-mail.


Jesus-loves-you (14-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesus-loves-you


Dato : 14-02-09 17:25

"Poul E. Jørgensen" skrev
news:150a5$4996e61e$5b96e0a8$14445@news.jay.net

[ ... file 8432 ... ]

> > "Poul E. Jørgensen" skrev
> >
> >> I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
> >>
> >> " v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger
> >> Herren, skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal
> >> tænke på den, ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der skal
> >> ikke laves nogen anden. ...
> >
> >
> > Heri kommer den *selvsamme* mening frem, for det har vel intet formål at
> > lave en anden ark, når/hvis man allerede har den forrige, ikke sandt ?
>
>
> Jeg forstår ikke at du læser Jer. 3, 16-17 sådan. Lave en anden ark?
> Der tales om en fremtid, Gudsrigets fremtid, det ny Jerusalems fremtid,
> hvor arken er overflødig ("ingen skal savne den").


Nå ... på dén måde ... aha ...

Øh ...

Der er jo *flere* måder at læse teksten på!

Det er helt klart, at der lægges op til den ny Pagt i teksten (dsv.
Kristendommen), og her kan vi vist rolig sige, at der IKKE længere er behov
for Arken med de 10 bud osv., for nu er det skrevet på kødhjerter fremfor
sten, jævnfør Jer. 31,33-34 samt NT.

Men ikke desto mindre kommer vi ikke udenom den *kendsgerning*, at den
første Ark fortsat mangler! Er pist væk! "Versvunden" ... øh verschollen
ist!

Og det var sådan set blot dét, jeg mente - arkæologisk set - med mit
ordvalg.


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8435 news:4996ec8e$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8436



P.N (17-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : P.N


Dato : 17-02-09 19:10


"Poul E. Jørgensen" <33@AAAGVDNET.DK> skrev i en meddelelse
news:d22d7$4996a409$5b96e0a8$11129@news.jay.net...
> I 1992 oversættelsen lyder Jer. 3,16-17 sådan:
> " v16 I de dage, når I bliver talrige og frugtbare i landet, siger
> Herren, skal man ikke længere tale om Herrens pagts ark, ingen skal tænke
> på den, ingen skal huske den, ingen skal savne den, og der skal ikke laves
> nogen anden. v17 Da skal Jerusalem kaldes Herrens trone, og alle folk
> skal samles i Herrens navn i Jerusalem." (Citat slut).
>
> Vulgata har det samme. Luther tilsvarende. Så dit citat kan ikke stamme
> derfra.
>
> --
> Poul E. Jørgensen
>
Pagtens ark er det ikke Indiana Jones og den forsvundne skat.



Poul E. Jørgensen (17-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Poul E. Jørgensen


Dato : 17-02-09 19:14

"P.N" <pn@tdc.dk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:499afd8f$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Pagtens ark er det ikke Indiana Jones og den forsvundne skat.


Joh - og det blandes sammen med den hellige gral og hvad ved jeg.

--
Poul E. Jørgensen

Fjern de to A'er hvis du svarer per e-mail.
Remove the two A's when replying by e-mail.


Per Vadmand (18-02-2009)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Vadmand


Dato : 18-02-09 00:13

Poul E. Jørgensen wrote:
> "P.N" <pn@tdc.dk> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:499afd8f$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> Pagtens ark er det ikke Indiana Jones og den forsvundne skat.
>
>
> Joh - og det blandes sammen med den hellige gral og hvad ved jeg.

Det er nu dig, der blander - det er to forskellige film.

Per V
--
Forbyd telefonspam!



Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177558
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408921
Brugere : 218888

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste