Is that His real name Jesus?

[AandW_Rootbeer]

On 8/8/2021 at 9:02 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

So, can you list any changes that does actually change the message of the text?

If we take the Torah, which was written literally 3,000 years before the KJV Bible, there is a Verse that from the Torah's view means totally different than from the KJV Bible's view.

 

This is the same Verse from the KJV first, Torah second.

 

What the Hebrew calls prostitute, KJV calls sodomite.

 

That is two separate meanings.

 

That could very easily change the text of what we Believe after reading Deuteronomy 23:

 

17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

 

18There shall not be a prostitute of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a male prostitute of the sons of Israel.

יחלֹא־תִֽהְיֶ֥ה קְדֵשָׁ֖ה מִבְּנ֣וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה קָדֵ֖שׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

[The_Patriot21]

1 minute ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

If we take the Torah, which was written literally 3,000 years before the KJV Bible, there is a Verse that from the Torah's view means totally different than from the KJV Bible's view.

 

This is the same Verse from the KJV first, Torah second.

 

What the Hebrew calls prostitute, KJV calls sodomite.

 

That is two separate meanings.

 

That could very easily change the text of what we Believe after reading Deuteronomy 23:

 

17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

 

18There shall not be a prostitute of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a male prostitute of the sons of Israel.

יחלֹא־תִֽהְיֶ֥ה קְדֵשָׁ֖ה מִבְּנ֣וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה קָדֵ֖שׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

Well...can change the meaning...however if the male prostitute is a homosexual it really doesnt change the meaning, and im that day and time it probably did as most women were not the ones in need of a pristitute.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

17 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Well...can change the meaning...however if the male prostitute is a homosexual it really doesnt change the meaning, and im that day and time it probably did as most women were not the ones in need of a pristitute.

Hey Brother, I understand your viewpoint and agree with You!

 

It's just interesting when newer translations of the Bible have a different word than what the older Bible had.   I'm not saying either one is wrong.   I just find it intrigues me to want to know why the later translation corrected it with a word, that immediately, has no similar meaning.

Edited August 11, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[AandW_Rootbeer]

11 minutes ago, pinacled said:

There are other TaNaKh english translations. Two of which are worded just as the KJV is.

JPS and mechon-mamre

Its helpful to study Torah as a Whole instead of a single verse so that a person will come to fully grasp the contextual meaning.

Whether prostitutes are male or female both are an abomination just as the unnatural union between the same gender.

 

 

Agreed!

I do however prefer an actual speaking Hebrew Sofer to translate the Torah into English best.  But I will look into the other translations.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

17 minutes ago, Josheb said:

This is 100% correct. Even if the KJV were an accurate representation of the Torah in its day, it may no longer be so because words have entirely different meanings today than they did 500 years ago - even in the same language. 

But there is another concern because even if we use the literal transliteration of Hebrew words and call Solomon "Peace," and Jesus "Salvation," we still have the problem of the Jews not adequately understanding what was written to them in veiled form. Their view of things was often incorrect. This is important because oneof the most basic of principles for understanding scripture correctly is to first understand what is written as the original author intended it and his original audience would have read it. The problem is there is a disparity between what the prophets intended and what the original Jewish readers understood. Their understanding of God's anointed one was serious flawed. Their understanding of the covenant, the promises, the priesthood, the land, the monarchy, the temple and life on the other side of the grave all contained misunderstandings. Not everything they understood was wrong but much of it was. 

 

We must, therefore, understand Torah through the additional unveiling revelation(s) of God in the New Testament, and not the other way around (as this op implies). 

Agreed!

 

But the kjv has a tendency to define one object with a specific word, and then that single definition gets applied to like objects that have actual different meanings.   This is why it is important to View the Torah or Tanakh, because it lets us know when kjv is using a single word for all meanings, which is misleading the reader.

 

Many times I will use the <Codex Sinaiticus> to verify the KJV New Testament for same reason I use the Torah/Tanakh to verify the KJV Old Testament.

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Hey Brother, I understand your viewpoint and agree with You!

 

It's just interesting when newer translations of the Bible have a different word than what the older Bible had.   I'm not saying either one is wrong.   I just find it intrigues me to want to know why the later translation corrected it with a word, that immediately, has no similar meaning.

The biggest reasons different translations use different words is they often use different texts, for one, and to the translators perogative. In both greek and hebrew many words can be translated multiple ways, depending on context, and different translators being human will translate them differently. Sometimes they get it right...other times they need some improvement, and lets face it some translations are pure garbage.

With that said i like studying out of multiple translations at once just to compare the differences because it forces me to dig into the scripture to get a more solid understanding.

Like this male prostitute thing. On the surface your right it does appear to be a different meaning because if a woman hires a male prostitute thats not sodomy. However if you look back at the culture then, you realize that male prostitutes typically serviced men (yes homosexuality is not a new thing) and therefore is most likely talking about sodomy.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

53 minutes ago, pinacled said:

An example of context involve what Yeshua spoke of concerning vow's. If a person hasn't read or studied Torah fully they'll misunderstand His meaning or worse slander Him unintentionally with speculation.

Matt 24 33-34

Devarim 23 23-24

Blessed be The Holy One

My reasoning for mentioning Verse 18 only was after reading it from the KJV, I read it from the Torah and noticed the difference.   I am not trying to use Verse 18 for any purpose in a whole meaning of Scripture prior/following Verse 18.   I just copied Verse 18 to post it in comparison how the Verses read differently.

 

But I agree to your Context!

[AandW_Rootbeer]

54 minutes ago, pinacled said:

 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

 

I would hope that having a preference is not literally swearing, but that it's where God has led you to View his Word from!

[AandW_Rootbeer]

15 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, but this op is not about the KJV. This op is about the premise we should all know, speak/read, and understand what names in Hebrew literally mean and Bible translations should be more transliterational. There is some validity to that position but it is not wholly true and I have asked about and asserted various reasons why the implications (because the op hasn't come right out and directly asserted an explicit thesis) of this op are incorrect. As far as I can tell everyone participating in the discussion agrees in some way or another with the dissent and the op has not adequately engaged the concerns broguht to bear on the opening post. This lack of engagement can occur for many reasons but chief among them are a lack of familiarity and preparation with potential dissent. A more serious reason but one none of us can address is a lack of interest (no interest in hearing any disagreement, no interest in learning more than what is already believed, no interest in developing a teachable spirit, no interest.... etc., etc.). Many participants introduced concerns I did not think to broach. I am the better for their having done so. You and I have disagreed on other matters but here we share much agreement and do so with many others of otherwise diverse povs. 

As a consequence I find the op fails due to the existence of so many inconsistencies and contradictions, the failure to build a reasonable, rational, exegetical and cogent defense for its position, and the lack of respect shown what I assume are all the other well-meaning posters who simply disagreed . 

I do not believe such a response is ever nor can ever be persuasive. 

But even so, there is a common knowledge that exists about Christ and His 12 that we don't have to assume because it's not directly found within the Gospels.   We have great understanding Christ and many of His Disciples were from Aramaic Speaking Communities.   His name would definitely begin in a "Y" and the Greek having no "Y" would use a "J" instead.

 

It's rather obvious His Name is Yeshua.  It literally means Yahweh's Salvation.

 

Which I phrase it the Yahweh's Salvation Plan = Yeshua

[AandW_Rootbeer]

23 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

The biggest reasons different translations use different words is they often use different texts, for one, and to the translators perogative. In both greek and hebrew many words can be translated multiple ways, depending on context, and different translators being human will translate them differently. Sometimes they get it right...other times they need some improvement, and lets face it some translations are pure garbage.

Amen!

23 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

With that said i like studying out of multiple translations at once just to compare the differences because it forces me to dig into the scripture to get a more solid understanding.

Amen!

23 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Like this male prostitute thing. On the surface your right it does appear to be a different meaning because if a woman hires a male prostitute thats not sodomy. However if you look back at the culture then, you realize that male prostitutes typically serviced men (yes homosexuality is not a new thing) and therefore is most likely talking about sodomy.

Agreed about applying the Customs of those days, the way people viewed such things, what was accepted and what was not.   A lot of Ancient Cultures like Greece, we read about these great warriors, were all traditionally used by elder men in their training to become this great warrior.  So, more than likely, any word that is within the ballpark that relates to male prostitutes, could easily apply.

 

But in word, meaning only based upon the word's definition, prostitution and sodomy are different as night from day.