Note that Peterlag does not read my posts -- or does not acknowledge do so except in rare cases. I may have to do a trip to the library to check the contents again. It is a 32page book about that translation. I'm a bit reticent about scholars who write commentaries on more than one or two books of scripture -- as to their special insight and contribution. Translation involves familiarity with, in this case, the whole New Testament. It is to a significant degree an interpretation process underlying the translation process. I do encounter situations where the translator is smarter than a commentator. There are also translations where the attempt to clarify a point actually obscures what actually is said. So, translators have to be careful in their work. That is why teams usually are involved.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
DavidTree
Active Member
And you think i will say: 'wow' he wrote a bible
Not going to happen
i went over and read this Concordant version John chapter 1 and a few other places and it is NOT GOOD and not of GOD
Like i said , your teacher lacks the Holy Spirit and so do you
Do not wait until it is too late for you to submit yourself unto CHRIST = it is the only Way and we all must follow His Way
Last edited:
Joseph Smith wrote a bible. Should we become Mormons?
Peterlag
Active Member
Was it the first 4 verse of John 1 that has no "hims" in it that you did not like? I been telling you for a while now that the logos is an it. Not a him.
1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word.
2 This was in the beginning toward God.
3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.
4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
That does not work well in Matt 21:12 It entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. It overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
We keep on reminding Peterlag that Jesus is not an it. More seriously. We have:
Revelation 19:13 (ESV)
13He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
Edited in after the first like:
Peterlag does not address that as much as I can recall. If he were truly debating this and considered the passages against his view, I might be more friendly. He is just here to promote the Unitarian heresy.
DavidTree
Active Member
Yes you have and you will never be Saved by an 'it'
the devil has you Peter and your only Hope is the LORD Jesus Christ
Doug Brents
Active Member
He wrote the Bible? Hmmm. I would suspect that he only translated it, since the most recent parts of it were originally written about 1900 years ago.
And when a translation differs so completely and dramatically from the vast majority of other translations, it calls into suspect the thoughts, motives, and conclusions of the translator.
Peterlag
Active Member
I looked at a few places of his translation and found it all to be so good that I'm going to read the entire New Testament. He even has 2 Corinthians 5:21 correct. Jesus did not become sin as the KJV writes. Jesus became a sin offering.
21 For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our
hmmm. the mistranslation should be a warning, not a welcome-- not a reason to accept the translation.
Doug Brents
Active Member
So you are saying that He became our sin offering? So that would mean that we become His righteousness offering?
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
No,
Isa 53:6 says:
"All of us, like sheep, have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all
To fall on Him."
He put on our sin. He became the sinner that we are, so that we could become the righteousness that He is.
Peterlag
Active Member
Here's a few more besides A.E. Knoch's translation...
New Living Translation
For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.
Anderson New Testament
for he has made him, who knew no sin, a sin-offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
Haweis New Testament
For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be a sin offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
Haweis New Testament
For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be a sin offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
dwight92070
Active Member
There's reasons why the Bible does not teach Unitarianism in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why the Bible teaches that God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about Unitarianism in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like Unitarianism and the Bible is silent on all of it.
And there's the spinning and twisting from the Unitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should not believe or confess that Jesus is God. Unitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would not come to the earth as a man. Unitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Unitarian, and Unitarianism and nonTrinitarian.
If any of this nonsense - Unitarianism - was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.
And there's the spinning and twisting from the Unitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should not believe or confess that Jesus is God. Unitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would not come to the earth as a man. Unitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Unitarian, and Unitarianism and nonTrinitarian.
If any of this nonsense - Unitarianism - was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.
I guess Haweis' translation was significant enough to mention twice. The problem remains that the word "offering" does not correspond to anything in the Greek text. It further may show the Concordant was partly inspired by other translations -- but translators in general do tend to consider wording of other translations in one way or another.
Doug Brents
Active Member
None of those are accurate, word for word, translations. They are paraphrases, which means that the author of those books wrote what he/she THOUGHT the original language meant, not what it actually says.
Further, anyone who names the Scripture after himself, in my opinion, is self-seeking and has all his reward in the money he makes from selling his novel.
A quick lookup on Anderson and Haweis indicates they were respected. Anderson was a respected scholar. Haweis was only mentioned to be an Anglican clergyman, but he maybe had good knowledge of Greek. The problems of translation would be many. One is the Greek text they used. Another is the narrowed expertise -- not an expert on all books of the NT. Of course, the interpretation is (apparently) of one man and has to be read in that light.
The front page of the Haweis translation does indicate the goal to write a version to "assist the unlearned."
A translation of the New Testament from the original Greek. ... By T. Haweis, ... 1795 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
A translation of the New Testament from the original Greek. ... By T. Haweis, ... 1795..Digitized from IA40312802-65.Previous issue:...
archive.org
The Anderson translation is available at
The problem in this case really is of the Unitarian's desperate search to find anything that might lead a Christian to deny Christ. It is not obvious to be an attempt to sneak in support for Unitarian doctrines.
(I am not an expert on this. I just used AI to find basic info about the translation and translator.)
Last edited:
Peterlag
Active Member
A question I have is why you believe the following translation is not accurate. A sin offering fits with everything else in the Scriptures.
New Living Translation
For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.
Peterlag
Active Member
...why is there no Scripture that says we should not believe or confess that Jesus is God?
In this life we speak about what is. Not what is not. There were no cars in the days Jesus walked the earth. Thus, there's no Scripture that says there are no cars.
It is too bad that Peterlag does not realize that is a paraphrase. Nor does he realize the misconception here.
A sin offering is a temporal measure that only addresses a sin (or maybe many sins) done.
For Christ taking on the essence of sin at the cross, the power of sin to lead to death was removed. If Peterlag learns that, he may get a sense of what it is to be in Christ.
Funny. You put a mirror in Peterlag's face and he still does not see anything.
Doug Brents
Active Member
He was a sin offering. But he was also made to be sin on our behalf, as Isaiah said He would be. Adding the word "offering" to that passage doesn't make the verse dispute other Scripture, but it does make it say something that the original writer (and the Holy Spirit who authored it) meant for it to say.
