And John Calvin, a brilliant classicist who altered translations where he saw fit, and took great pains to disprove the interpretation referring to sin and personal absolution, was unable to avoid these terms, and had therefore to resort to convoluted exegesis.

Also, the Vulgate, based evidently on 4th century & earlier Latin manuscripts, has this same rendering - "Whose sins you forgive..." ("quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis detenta sunt"). So it is not confined to modern translations. It is every translation before Yada's.

Edited by user Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:19:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: addendum

Sorry, but the "breaking of bread" that happened at "The Last Supper" had nothing to do with the breaking of bread with the guys in Emmaus. In fact, what we refer to as "The Last Supper" was actually the Passover meal.

Don't believe me? Well, here's a quote from the New Jerusalem Bible, the Catholic Bible, Luke 22:14-16:

When the time came he took his place at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, ‘I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 because, I tell you, I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.'



Sorry, but Justin was also an Angel worshipper, so whatever he has to say is completely and utterly useless. (See The Apologies of Justin martyr by B. Gildersleeve, page 117. Or see A New Eusibius page 60)



Sorry, but Yahushua's victory over death was memorialised 1,500 years before it actually happened. It's called The Feast of Firstfruits, and Yahuweh ordained that feast himself. Yahuweh didn't ordain the day of the Sun as any sort of specific worship day for Him, nor as a replacement for the Seventh day Sabbath. In fact, he told us not to follow the customs of those that did such things, hence why we don't follow Catholicism.



Sorry, but I made no hint to nor even mention Yada in the passage of mine that you quoted, so why are you talking about him when I wasn't? And I'm absolutely certain that the Protestants have been trying to teach you Roman Catholics the actual meaning of the verses I quoted above long before I or even Yada was born.

You've created a straw-man, and have failed to actually address what I said.

And for the record, I run www.thewaytoyahuweh.com - I don't need Yada to translate Greek for me, and I am able to translate Koine Greek on sight anyway.



If you ask the average person on the street what the word "holy" means, I can guarantee that not 1 in 1000 people would immediately say "Set-Apart". "Holy" has become a wholly religious word, and using Holy instead of Set-Apart causes so much complications it's much better to just say set-apart. People understand what it means without it being tainted by religiosity.



I've found that sometimes, words just don't say enough. The picture with my face in the air and my hand over it expresses everything that you can think of regarding the disbelief in what I just saw written in your post. And the second two express my exasperation at the constant moronic stupidity that infects the human mind.



Lovely. But again, "sin" is one of those words which may have more or less been fine 500 years ago as an English translation of the Greek αμαρτια/hamartia, but has now lost all of it's original meaning that is expressed by the Greek αμαρτια/hamartia. "missing the way and erring" is actually a full and proper translation of the Greek αμαρτια/hamartia - Greek does in fact require more than one English word to fully accentuate the meaning of the words used.

We are plagued by the "one-word-translation" doctrine that ravages Scriptural Translation, even in those that are considered "paraphrase" bibles (The Message, New Living Translation). If you want to get the actual meaning of the Koine Greek text of the Renewed Covenant Writings across, you need a heck of a lot more than one English word. English just isn't as rich as Greek and Hebrew is.

And the reason "sin" doesn't appear twice in Jon 20:23 is because the Greek text only contains αμαρτια/hamartia once, not twice like most English translations would have us believe



What makes you think that "scholars" have actually translated the words the same way Yada has? I've read numerous commentaries on the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant by renowned commentators, and many of them will break away from the accepted meaning of the Greek text in their commentaries, but would not have the courage to try and get Bible "Translators" to stick a different translation in their "Bibles" - Familiarity sells, and the less a Bible diverges from the King James Version, the more copies it will sell.

Many, if not all, Bible Translations are in it for the money - It is the most sold Book on the planet, and if you can get people interested in a Bible Translation, you're going to be pocketing millions.



Have you made sure that the Bible translations you own had people who checked the translation of the Greek and Hebrew, who were also impartial classicists who had no interest in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, or any other religion that likes to borrow things from Scripture?

If the answer's no, then I take it you don't trust the Bibles that you own.

And as someone who doesn't need a dictionary or lexicon to translate Greek, there's nothing wrong with Yada's translation of John 20:22-23.



I have no idea why you're referring to John Calvin. Has anyone here referred to him? No. So why mention something that he's done, especially when most of us dislike John Calvin due to his completely ridiculous Calvinistic theology of predestination of people for heaven and hell.

And no offence, but Catholicism has had to resort to convoluted eisegesis for a long, long time. And Protestant Christians as well.

We're critical of everyone who says things which are wrong - Protestant and Catholics alike.



Is that Latin there taken from a 4th Century version of the Latin Vulgate? Or of one of the numerous manuscripts containing the Old Latin translation of John 20:22-23?

If not, then I'm afraid you're going to have to find a manuscript to quote from verbatim.



We're not Yada's PR troop. Email him and ask if you want answers about him. Always better from the horses mouth as they say.

jpelham, as I am a member of the moderation team, can I just advise you to not post three posts in a row - if you have something more to say, and you were the last person to post, just click on the "edit" button on your post and add whatever else it is you need to say. This makes it easier for people to read, and actually uses less bandwidth and space on the forum that Yada pays for out of his own pocket. Think he'd like to keep the cost down if he can.

My knowledge of Hebrew is quite limited actually, jpelham, hence why I hardly talk about Hebrew. I am however an autodidact (which comes from the Greek αυτοδιδακτος/autodidaktos) on Greek and history. I know a little Latin, but nothing extensive.

And I'm pretty good at being the exception to the rule :)

A "Memorial" is a remembering.



This speaks for itself



'Missing the way and erring' refers to departing from the Way we are led by Yahuweh, i.e., disobedience, or sin.



I recognize that translation is not a one-to-one mapping of words.



Scholars are not in it for the money, but to be the first to puiblish.



You avoid the issue. And I have reiterated it in my initial post.

Sorry to proliferate.

I will pray for both of us.

It is unfortunate that you banned him for two weeks. Couldn't you shorten it to like 2 days and give him a chance to reply to the quote that upset you? Maybe you just tire of the discussion and do not want to spend anymore time with it.
It is kind of interesting though... It seems that Mr. Pelham is just defending his religion and is not very open to changing his perspective or willing to see any error in the catholic church.
His straw man arguments are pretty weak. One very admirable characteristic of most people here (and Yada, even though he doesn't participate here) is their willingness to be challenged by new insights into Yahweh's truth and their humility to say, "I was wrong" or "I was deceived".

Well, since this site "attacks" (from their perspective - proclaims truth from ours) catholicism, christianity and theother religions, it should be expected for them to come here in defense

Since YY says all their religions are satan rooted and their leaders serve satan, shouldn't we expect them to make the same charge back?

If we are willing to dish it out, we should be willing to take it

Sure, and I've given enough of my valuable time answering such people.

It's time for others to have a go, so that those of us that answer these people most of the time don't go mental.

Also, it should be noted that this thread was not started to discuss Catholicism. In fact, Y777, the originator of this topic, hasn't yet had a second response within it. That should tell us a lot.



Agreed Richard. I too have had more than enough time of mine wasted that I can endeavour to engage somewhere else.

And you know what, that's what I'm gonna go do now

Edited by user Monday, June 14, 2010 12:30:23 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Bumpage

I don't understand what you think the Catholic church is. I know many Catholics, I was brought up protestant with many Catholic friends who went to Catholic schools. If our information on Catholics, (who are not a strange illusive breed here in the UK, they are very prevalent) is incorrect then teach us what you believe the Catholic church to be about and where you see that we are incorrect.

James has a pretty good understanding via experience, Swalchy knows all too well as his fathers half of his family are Catholic, etc etc. Please explain how we have gotten it wrong.

Ok - but that didn't really answer the question it was just more burble lol

I look forward to your post :)

As a recovering catholic, myself, it's just maddening to read pelham's posts.
It's just like arguing with my family members and many people who want only to defend their precious church.
Fundamentalism at it's finest.

I've been told that I am DEAD in 'jesus' eyes...I've been told that I must go to MASS and go to confession and pray to Mary, that nobody comes to God but by way of the catholic church and his 'holiness' the pope.....on and on and on.

How about defending the Word of Yah??? If you seek truth, there is no way that you can read catholic 'doctrine' and come to the conclusion that they speak for Yah.
Sure, it's all dressed up in fancy schmancy words and veiled in truths here and there, but it is not inspired and it is not Truth.

It contradicts the Word in so many ways....ugh, it makes me sick to my stomach. I spent years going to mass and seeking truth, only to come away totally confused and beholden to the men who run the church. I must confess to them, where they tell me to go recite hail marys and other chants and rants....
as if that would actually absolve me of any 'sins'. Really?? I must give them money every week or they will send me 'bills' and/or come to my house to 'collect' my 'offering'. Really? I must go to mass and go through that 'ritual' exercise of eating a freakin' wafer every sunday and call it communing with God. Really?
Yes, I was 'emotionally' attached to this idea for years. And boom, clarity happens. What emptiness. Talk about being among a bunch of dead...zombies.

I better stop. I am just not articulate enough to go on. I tend to rant in my exasperation with catholics who try and beat me over the head with their way of reasoning, which always leaves me spinning in circles like a top, getting Nowhere.

This YY site may not be perfect, which it never claims to be, but it's solid in it's way of seeking truths. I wish more catholics could put aside their emotions and honestly and logically look at what's going on....oy..

My take away from JP's posts is that no one, including the 2 gazzillion practicing catholics, understands the religion. I guess that speaks for itself.


Contradiction revealed:



Au contraire my dear Bridget, yours was the most articulate post of the bunch. Most of the others are babble and attempts to counter the babble.

lol robski...counterbabble...I resemble that remark....here I go..

And before I read the old and tired argument of "look at what the church has done to help millions", "the charity", "mother theresa"

blah blippity blah blah blah. And what say you of the people who are not religious who help out as well??
Sorry, but, I just can't let it go. I've been arguing these things with these holier than thou catholics ever since I decided that within the church is not where I would or could find my own path to Truths.

Mention 'by their fruits they'll be known' and they conveniently forget the MOLESTING of children and adults and relationships with women that they keep secret. We're supposed to ignore the fact that they spend millions of dollars on buildings with fantastic organs to play the music. (ssshhhh...concentrate on the charity work)
We're supposed to ignore that, but see Mother Theresa and the good only, right, pelham?
I mean, really, one look at that "pope mobile" and you know something is wrong.

No. Look at the whole of the church. Including all of it's sordid past. Yes, you must include it. You can't deny it. Oh, I know the answer, "Men are not perfect, but jesus wants this church and built this church and this is the only way", "ignore the bad men, concentrate on the good men"
Ignore fellow catholics who were abused by nuns in their upbringing in these holier than thou institutions. Ignore the fact that when you go seeking truth, the priest bows his head and raises his hand above your head and prays..asking for forgiveness of your sins. WTF?!?

Oh and my favorite one that happens now, "In the name of jesus!!! Heal her and take the evil out of her!!" Yes, these catholics think that they will save me. I sit and look at them totally dumbfounded. And these are not dumb people. These are very articulate, intelligent, successful people I'm dealing with. They always seem very confused when their calls to jesus ring empty. ...and then they tell me that the DEVIL has SUCH A STRONG hold over me. Oh, good grief. As if I were killing people and not sitting calmly just trying to discuss scripture/philosophy with them.

Seriously. I held a deep respect for the catholic church for a long time after I squirmed my way out of there. I'm losing respect on a daily basis. Hell, I used to hold a great amount of respect for my congressman, my senator, the Pres of the USA....No. No more. Respect is gone with the wind.

I was raised to 'respect my elder'....Nope. That elder has to earn my respect these days and if there is intellectual dishonesty...poof, be gone. I can't take it.

This forum, the book Yada Yahweh, the book Future History may not be perfection, it may not be solid 100% truth, but by damn they come about it honestly and seek to know. I guess it's just too easy for people to say, "the church has it all worked out..i shall follow them"...kind of like people who say, "let's depend on the government" ....I say..Get a Job. Read a book. THINK For yourselves. What happened to thinking??? What the heck is going on??? lol~

:)
ahhh, that's just like therapy. I feel so much better now. Thanks for the outlet. LOL....Do I sound loony? Blame it on the catholic church. LOL I kid...they're only partially responsible for my lunacy. ;)

I actually very rarely ban people unless another forum member makes an official complaint about a specific person.

jpelham here was an exception. But he's back now, so have fun :D

Just had to say great points and great posts Bridget.

The passion of your diatribe is compelling, and deserves a respectful hearing not just here but in your family and your former parish. I very respectfully offer just that your resentment is honestly expressed, but it is resentment and not a reasoned critique, justifiable anger evidently at the mistaken, distorted, or lovelessly transmitted views of those whose duty it was to share with you the truth of Yahuweh's love, but who instead shared bitterness, pain, or cynicism. Do not judge the Church by its Judases, but by its Johns or Peters, human but raised to saintliness.

Edited by user Sunday, June 20, 2010 8:43:34 AM(UTC)  | Reason: typo: of -> at

jpelham - are you ever going to answer any questions or are you just going to talk about the individuals and how non-catholic we all are?

I still want to know what you think the RCC actually believes and what it is.

If your rationale were applied to the Apostles, they would all be condemned for Judas's crime. It may or may not be as many as 11 out of 12, but most priests strive sincerely for holiness.

What I meant to say is please be patient, I really have time now just for...



But I will in a few days. I will address the issues you have raised respectfully and carefully, with citations if you should want to check sources.

I am amazed that y'all are still conversing with this person, Matthew. I figured out many posts ago that he is just wanting to argue for the sake of feeling superior in knowledge and understanding, and that he shows no sign at all of being a seeker of truth. Why waste your time with him? I don't want to seem harsh or uncaring, but come on! Enough is enough, already.

Let the pope and the RCC save him, seeing that he insists on tolerating and respecting them. Yahuweh commands us NOT to tolerate religion. So, as I asked before, why bother with the person? Shake off the dust and make room for someone who is sincere.

Richard

I got a little bored this afternoon and thought I'd challenge jpelham a bit.

Seeing bigrich's post now I came across point 841 in the Catechism regarding Muslims, it says: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Source

Unbelievable, they're saying Yahweh is the same god, that Yahweh is Allah. Obviously the Pope ignores the advise of Deuteronomy 13:1-5. Just this one little point causes the whole Catechism to become untrustworthy, therefore one can safely ignore the rest of the document and the whole Catholic Church with it.

ROFL

Oh yes, the fish hat, which bears no resemblance to the attire of the Levitical priests nor the high priest! Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylons) says the two-horned mitre worn by the Pope while he sits on the high altar and is adored by the Cardinals has its origin from the priests of Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians. Scripture mentions Dagon in 1 Samuel 5, and it's not a pretty passage of the Philistines.

I am going to go ahead and chime in hear. Jpelham, why does the Vatican have a pagan obelisk sitting at its front door?

I am sorry, but Catholicism is on par with Islam. Both are religions for idiots or those who have no idea what they just signed. But it takes a special kind of idiot to try to come up with reasons why these religions have any relevance at all.

Keep up the good work jpelham.

Catholicism is distinct from Islam by virtue of its belief in the categorical validity of reason. Islam allows their god to contradict himself, and be praised nonetheless, a dogmatism it shares identically with Protestant Christendom, though not the dogma. When reason finds itself at odds with doctrine, reason is sacrificed. This observation is not new, and was articulated in a speech delivered at the University of Regensburg in 2006, and promulgated worldwide. Islam responded typically, and Protestant Christendom has yet to offer a noteworthy response.

Regarding translation, what hold's for the ambitious user of Strong's concordance holds for every student of an ancient language:

“Strong’s Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong’s numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

The use of Strong’s numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.”

Accurate translation of any language requires considerably more than a few years of language study and reading history. My experience is with classical Chinese, the understanding of which is inseparable from an understanding of the culture.

I will be back as soon as I can, and beg your patience.

It should also be noted that "Strong's Concordance" wouldn't be able to help with translating anything - it's a concordance. Strong's Lexicon however is alright for a quick look at the root of a word. But no, certainly not good for translating anything.

But then, that's why I don't use it when translating :)

You make far too many assumptions, jpelham.

Don't think of us to be like the moronic Calvinists who plague the church that your wife goes to

I suspect that you're correct on many YY forum posters being multi-lingual and may in part explain the interest here in amplified translations of early manuscripts.

-Theophilus