1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

Biases In Our Bibles?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Ryan Lepko, Sep 29, 2012.

  1. I probably should have posted this here.

    The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was written about 300 or so years before Jesus came. The Septuagint was not written for the Greeks as they were still a pagan nation. It was written for the Jews who knew Greek. It’s not as if there were a bunch of Christians 300 years before Jesus. Now can I show you an example of how important it is to study and seek out the bible and the meanings of the words from the original Hebrew, to the Greek then to the other languages such as our English. The reference’s are provided for your own studying.

    In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ‘edah’ was translated using the Greek word ‘sunagoge’. Both words were interchangeable in the Greek:

    5712 hde `edah, a stated assemblage a family or crowd:--assembly, company, congregation, multitude,
    #4864 sunagwgh sunagoge, soon-ag-o-gay' an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue"

    Exodus 35:1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah hath commanded, that ye should do them.

    35:1 και συνηθροισεν μωυσης πασαν συναγωγην(#4864) υιων ισραηλ και ειπεν προς αυτους ουτοι οι λογοι ους ειπεν κυριος ποιησαι αυτους

    Notice here in Acts the same root word, sunagoge.
    Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled (sunagogoe) together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

    Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: (sunagogue)
    The same Greek word they use in Acts, is the same root word they use in 300 BC. Now what do we see suddenly in James?

    James 2:1, 2 For if there come unto your assembly (sunagogue) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
    Did you notice that they changed the word from sunagoge, to assembly cause the translators didn’t want to think the early church was meeting in the synagogue? So now the translators are going to call it an assembly. When you read the word assembly you don’t even realize that it’s the same Greek root word they are translating as synagogue everywhere else, but the translators don’t want you to think synagogue, so they put in same ideas in assembly. Is it making sense? See the play on words? Let’s go to Revelations.

    Revelations 2:9 but are of the synagogue (sunagogue) of Satan.
    Now you have the translation saying synagogue. What’s the Greek word? Sunagogue. Why didn’t they put assembly of Satan there? The connotation is that synagogues are bad. Can you see the bias there through the bible? Onto the next idea:

    06950 lhq qahal, 'kaw-hal' assemble (selves) (together), which is translated into:

    In Septuagint translated as ekklesia –
    1577 ekklhsia ekklesia, ek-klay-see'-ah
    a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Israelite assembly)

    When you think of ekklesia you think of church. You don’t think of synagogue.
    Leviticus 8:3 And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

    8:3 και πασαν την συναγωγην(4864)εκκλ(1577) ησιασον επι την θυραν της σκηνης του μαρτυριου

    300 years before Jesus came and they were translating the Hebrew into Greek, they are using the words the synagogue is holding an ekklesia. Were there any churches at that time the Septuagint was written? Were there any churches in Moses time in 1500 BC?

    Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church (#1577 ekklhsia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
    If the word ekklesia that they are referring to when the Septuagint was written in 300 BC, and the word is now referring to Moses in 1500 BC, why in the world would you put the church in the wilderness? Was there a church in the wilderness during Moses time? This passage from Acts is referencing this passage from Deuteronomy:

    Deuteronomy 18:15-18 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb (another name for Sinai) in the day of the assembly (ihq #6950), saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

    And from the Septuagint:

    18:15 προφητην εκ των αδελφων σου ως εμε αναστησει σοι κυριος ο θεος σου αυτου ακουσεσθε
    18:16 κατα παντα οσα ητησω παρα κυριου του θεου σου εν χωρηβ τη ημερα της
    ησιας λεγοντες ου προσθησομεν ακουσαι την φωνην κυριου του θεου ημων και το πυρ το μεγα τουτο ουκ οψομεθα ετι ουδε μη αποθανωμεν
    18:17 και ειπεν κυριος προς με ορθως παντα οσα ελαλησαν

    Acts 19:35-41 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another. But if ye enquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (ekklesia)

    Oops, they don’t want the readers to think it was the church worshipping the Goddess Diana. Even though ekklesia really means assembly, the translators have picked and choosen when they wanted to translate it into church or assembly. Can you see the bias right there? Ekklesia and sunagoge meant the same thing. It merely meant an assembly of people. Anywhere you have a group of people together, it is the same thing. From a football game, to being at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It meant the same thing.

    Now when you ask what explains scripture. I believe the Holy Spirit moves us and I believe the Bible is the living, breathing word of the Lord. I became saved reading Luke 23:39-43. The NIV Student Version no less. However, after I became saved I had no direction and for a time was seriously studying Calvinism, yikes. I had to use some discernment skills, and evaluate what was being taught, did not correspond with the bible. I prayed to the Father vehemently that he would lead me down the correct path and teachings. That’s how I ended up where I am today. I don’t want you to take what I just wrote as the gospel, verify yourselves.

    The “church” is not a New Testament phenomenon! By using this word it makes us think of the church as being distinct from the Jewish people. So when we say, “when did the “church” begin everyone, says “in Acts”. That is replacement theology. Church comes from the word ekklesia which you saw was translated from the word assembly 300 years before the coming of Christ. There were no churches in the New Testament. There were only assemblies meeting in synagogues.

    The Assembly of called out ones began in Exodus not in Acts. Replacement theology implies the church was called out of Israel which is just the opposite of the truth, because all of the non-Jews are called to be grafted into the Olive Tree which is Israel. God has called Israel to be the ekklesia (called out ones) in that non Jews who have been called out of the world of paganism and idolatry are grafted in to Israel who were and are the called out ones! Replacement theology implies the church is called out of the church.

    Hebrews 11:32-40 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephtha; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
    It doesn’t say us without them! These are the faithful, patriarchal Jews we are grafted in with!

    Ecclesia used 70 times in the Old Testament. Church or churches appears 115 times in the New Testament. How would it sound if they put assembly as it was used throughout the Old? It would sure change people’s perspective.

    This is an example of poor translations, intentional or not, that has shaped poor doctrine and theology. Does anyone else have any other examples of
    poorly translated words that greatly impact a verse?
  2. I have seen three words used in the bible to describe the relationship between the Jews and the christians and those three words are "grafted", "adopted" and "co-heirs". I find it absolutely unbelievable that some not only believe in Replacement Theology but perpetuate it's teaching. There is no humility in that kind of teaching only arrogance and pride.
    Thank you Ryan for making it even more clear to me the error of Replacement Theology.
  3. Ryan...I personally find this post onerous again. I'll address what I was able to pull out.

    The Olive Tree is NOT Israel, it is Jesus. The branches are new converts from Israel or Gentiles as Romans 11 shows.

    We are grafted into the olive tree, as wild olive branches, and both the wild branches and the native branches nourish from the same root, which is Jesus.

    I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make about Heb 11:32-40? What is your point in saying,
  4. The roots are Jesus Revelation 22:16I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches (assemblies). I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

    I believe the tree is Israel with the covenantal promises and commandments that he gave. Ephesians 2:11-22 repeats Romans 11 without the Olive Tree symbolism.

    Pretty simple explanation. We are all part of Spiritual Israel and share in the same covenantal promises afforded to all believers.

    Jeremiah 11 details Israel breaking the covenant and verse 16 is clear about who the Lord called the Olive Tree, “The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken.”

    And the last comment about the patriarchs was just the exclamation point, or the boo-ya about the point about replacement theology in Hebrews 11. The writer was speaking to Hebrew believers and talking about Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and he is saying that God had planned something better that would involve them, so that only with them, God’s final plan could not be achieved without the believing Jews. This is the slam dunk verse that completely destroys the doctrine of replacement theology. I hope that was clearer.

    I made this thread moments after posting it in NetChaplains as I thought this would be a better spot to put it and maybe get more discussion. I’m studying Leviticus now and most translations have taken out the word “voluntary” when offering a sacrifice to the Lord. Only the KJV and the NASB I think has that word in there. Most people don’t realize that the sacrifices were not meant to satisfy a blood thirsty god who required blood when someone sinned. Most of the sacrifices were of a voluntary nature. Maybe I’ll do a write up on the stuff I’ve learned and share as the sacrifices are really misunderstood.
  5. The point is not what you believe, but what thew scripture say and indicate. They do not say nor indicate what you are asserting. Paul does repeat things through his writings, but the tree/vine is ALWAYS Jesus. The branches are Israel, just as Paul says. I'm afraid you do not really have a grasp of what is being said by Paul here.
  6. Paul was quoting this verse. He was a master of the bible, which was only the Old Testament at the time. Unless you haven't read Jeremiah 11, I do not know how I can be more clearer about who the Olive Tree was. From what I understand there are 4 trees that symbolize Israel's relationship with God. The Olive, the Fig, The Fir and the Vine. I have shown reasonable scriptural passages showing Israel is the Olive Tree. Can you show me where it says otherwise?
  7. I'm NOT talking about Jeremiah 11, I'm talking about Romans 11, where Paul says in verses 16 - 18; if the root is holy, so also are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
    Clearly, Paul is showing the Gentile believers that Jesus is the root/tree, and the branches are Jews and Gentiles. Paul may know all about the OT, but his audience here is NOT Jewish or of Israel. They are the believers in ROME. Paul's calling/ministry was to the Gentiles. You're so stuck on trying to prove your point, you can't see this tree for what Paul says it is.
    John 15:1-2; I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts off, but every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, so that it may bear more fruit.
    John 15:5; I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who abides in me and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

    Edit by Moderator : The removed comment was inappropriate. Please review the forum rules and posting guidelines.
  8. Ok. Peace be with you and God bless.

Share This Page