Comments for divinity II
Código VBDD-E0011-I
VIEW:585 DATA:2020-03-20
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, where did you get that from? What is the reference of this content? The Hebrew log verse is written like this: גבור H1368 אביעד
Look אביעד (Eternal Father), see אב (tab) Father.
Text taken from
This is the unpointed Tanach, from the Masoretic text. The word Tanach is a Hebrew acronymn for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings), the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
You are writing based on inventions.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, I am writing based on the closest translation that is the Hebrew, and with contextual support, as I have shown in arguments for you.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
What arguments? I read the text, and do you come with stories? Now I read stone, and you come to tell me that people say it is a stick? What is that? I use the proven documents, I don't use people's imagination. It's written, what's written.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Isaías IS THE WORST TRANSLATED BOOK OF THE HEBREW, recognized even by countless theological universities.
According to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his life. The fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage, and the authors did not apply these titles to Jesus, may be an indication that even the New Testament authors knew that they did not apply to him.
There is yet another basis for relying on the Hebrew translation.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, theological universities? Which are? The most proven book that exists is that of Isaiah, because the oldest document in the Bible that exists is the dead sea manuscript, containing Isaiah. The text refers to the messiah, and calling it messiah receives all the conjectures. But unlike people who are imagining and changing translations. Hebrew has almost no variation in the way of copying the scribes. Isaiah is a book that has prophecies, and such were written the way the prophet wrote, and he wrote just as it was written. What is written is written.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo we are discussing this because you want to because you want to, take your personal name from God (Which by itself, goes against a clear biblical doctrine that covers dozens of verses, not one, even quoting the word "Invoke" with reference to the name, which indicates that the meaning is really that of a personal name in the most common form as we understand it, and not a more philosophical and profound meaning as you intend), equaling titles and everything else, when it does not exist. The bible refers to the personal name of God and says that we need to call on him.
The very fact that the text in Isaiah 9: 6 says that "your name will be" (in the singular) and then presents several titles (Not names, not just one, in the singular) already shows that the construction of the sentence is incorrect, but as I said, you will only see what you want.
It is no use taking the originals and claiming that you are not seeing this, you know that even the most knowledgeable people in Hebrew and Greek often disagree when it comes to the verbal construction of several phrases in the scriptures.
I have already presented several arguments that serve as a basis for the acceptance of the text of the Hebrew Bible, since you are limited to showing the originals, and we know that the construction of a translation into our language can be quite controversial.
That is why I stand firm in my position.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
I don't know anything about controversial translation. The problem with a translation is to match the word to a sentence, not its meaning.
For example (Bereshit bara elohim) (I first created God) and turning around (in the beginning I created God), which is difficult for them, the idea of the word is always the same. Only dictionary is used. You have to read it. It has no variation in meaning.
What I am defending is that what is written is what is written. The bible is written the way it is written. Now you are going to say that x, y and z say that one thing that says "home" is "orange", even though it is written home, and that somewhere else is home? And do you think I'm going to believe in reading the Bible, or the idea of people who don't want to accept what is written?
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
And another one is not in the past, it is written ותהי, and if it were in the present it would be ותה, and it is not written in the present. It is marked as a reference at the time of the sentence. If the phrase is in the future ותהי, it is linked to the future, if the phrase is in the present it is linked in the present. But prayer is in the future, so the י bond becomes the future.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo who translated the Hebrew Bible would also use the same argument as you ... "What I am defending is that what is written is what is written. The Bible is written the way it is Now you're going to say that x, y and z say that one thing that says "home" is "orange", even though it's written home, and that somewhere else is home? "
The difference between you and him is that his translation has more contextual support than yours. The construction of the sentence you defend is suspect, and poorly done as I have already shown.
You don't even know about controversial translation, I know that.
Several supported people have translated and would translate such a different biblical text. Even you, if you were to translate this impartially, without your biased view it probably would not translate how you are presenting it, but the text would undergo at least slight modifications.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
I translate with a dictionary. I don't translate with my idea. I use literal terms. And I apply the word according to the dictionary. Without idealisms. I don't see controversial translation, I see controversial idealisms. For example.
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The person translated verb. Is it verb?
G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
It is logos, logos is not a verb. Logos can be the word, or the message of someone. Never a verb. Verb is an action, it is not about logos. So the problem is not the word, it is the translator's idea. There is no controversial translation, there is idealism of the translator. That's why I read from the original. So it is not a verb, no matter what one intends to do, it will never give a verb. Now if we want to make calls. Logos comes from logy mind, which defines linkage wisdom in Greek, linking John with proverbs, defining Jesus as wisdom. So there is no translation problem, there is an idea of the translator that has nothing to do with the dictionary. Because in the dictionary there is no verb anywhere.
Wander Souza N30 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, and some translations translate as "Logos". It doesn't change anything, we just need to know that.
That is not the point, and the text we were discussing was not John 1: 1. In addition to showing you controversial translations about that text, I also showed you several arguments that evidence my position.
Other people versed in Hebrew support this position, both with the same ideal as me, as opposed. So your theory is not true.
The problem is that you want me to accept the idea that translating an old text is an exact science (I don't know if I used the correct expression, but I hope you understand what I mean), when we know that there are long debates by highly specialized in translating certain passages in the Bible, some with idealism and others not, that go in completely different directions, and some that even show honesty when they admit the translation in a way that does not benefit them.
So I already have my position and you have yours.
Rubens Caputo 30/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, let me see? Its position is that of a medieval, with the Catholic Church. For example, a believer reads something in Latin, and then the priest says, "no", you are reading like this, but it is to read like this ". I must have understood + Wander Souza N, your belief is not in the bible, yes it is in the doctrines of men create. I prefer to follow the rules of translation, as they are the same in all cases. Than the rules linked to a creed of a church. I am not sure which church leads its creed + Wander Souza N, I only know that you accept the creed, as if it were the bible. Sorry, I do not follow the creed of your church. I follow what the bible says, and the bible only as norms of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. I will not follow your creed, as I do not follow any Catholic creed.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, I'm sorry but you follow your own vision. You may not even have a religion, but you translate the Bible the way you want, this is the most dangerous, because you are not willing to admit your mistake. Trust your own wisdom, and so the Bible will always say what you want.
I will repeat ... Do not try to deceive me. Translating ancient texts like Hebrew is not an easy task. You cannot ignore all scholars who study and work on texts like Isaiah 9: 6 and say that you translate "as it is", and so it is the truth. Certainly, when translating, you are giving priority to your side, just as you deliberately ignore arguments that I launched, which are indisputable, such as that of the spokesman who comes in the name of YHWH. You understand that that angel is called YHWH, because YHWH is a title and that's it. He does not read the text he gives me, where YHWH clearly says that "put the name on it". This is just one example that your view of biblical facts is biased. So don't try to be logical, because you are not. You really need to watch the video itself.
05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, Simples show me the grammatical rule that makes the text I showed become the text you wrote. For there is no Hebrew grammatical form that does what you have shown.
What you present to me is what the priests presented, they said. "look, you don't have the capacity to translate, all the translations only priests clearly understand, don't read, because only our reading can explain to you what the scriptures say", as I said I don't accept creed. If you accept it well. I accept the bible.
You asked "where does YHWH clearly say that" put the name on it ""
Exo 23:21 Walk around in awareness, and hear his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion;
"put the name on it" = "because my name is on it."
Let's see King James
Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
(my name is in him), he received the name YHWH.
NVI
Pay attention and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your transgressions, for my name is in him.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Of course the phrase was mine, but doesn't YHWH himself say that the name is on it? Who would have put it? Who sent it?
I advocate research and in-depth verification of every dubious text. When in doubt, it is clear that the correct way to translate is one that is in accordance with the context, and in the case of the passage we discussed, I presented several arguments in favor, I was not just at ease. And I haven't seen you refute some of them.
The grammatical rules at the time of translation are not 100% accurate, they often depend on the translator's criteria. Why are you translating my friend, I must conclude that there will be no mistakes? You think your translation is accurate, but that is a reality ...
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, The text about the name says "because my name is in it", it does not say "I put my name in it", if the text said, "I put my name in it", I would reply to you who put it the name on it. The text says "because my name is in it", so the name becomes position, position. In Hebrew, name represents status. Now translation follows rules, show the rules, not ideologies. Ideology each has its own, translation rules do not. I demonstrated that putting verb instead of word is ideology not translation. Translation is one thing ideology is another. If you take the idea that translating can follow ideological variation and create any concept, then there is no Bible, there are idealisms that anyone seeks to create their own. Such bibles would never reach God. For each one does his own according to his will. It is not so, the free translation of ideologies is the way to see the word of God. And not these speculations based on idealisms, be it of Jews, of Catholics, or any other institution that says that it has to follow what they determine.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo When did I say that translation should follow ideology? What I said is that translating ancient texts such as Hebrew is not something that is always done accurately and easily, because there are difficulties, our language is only difficult, a lot depends on the translator's criteria, and even because you are not the single translator. There are several endorsed translators who disagree with how to translate the same text, some with ideologies and others not. Some are honest and when it comes to translating the text, they damage their own vision. But I think you live stuck in some other world, where only your translation exists, and it must be free of errors.
You stopped at that, that your translation is perfect, as if you had no ideology and were not defending your own vision. You have already shown clear signs of bias since the beginning of this discussion. I admit that I am not free to make this mistake, but what about you? When the text suits you, you deliver it any way it appears in any translation, when not you analyze it in depth to change the meaning to one that corroborates your ideas.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I do not deliver, I accept to debate observing the criteria and not using other texts to translate a text. Translation is one thing, searching for a text here and another text there to change the translation, this is not a translation. The verse is there showing the rules of translation, and not ideologies that I understand. I don't change any sense of text, because I translate a text without observing anything, I translate the text, just the text. If there is a mistake, it has to be translation, not ideology, using translation rules.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Well then, that way you only see what you want in your translation. You fool yourself if you don't think so. I have already shown that the text is controversial, there are people on both sides claiming to have the correct way to translate. When a text proves difficult, I do not use ideology, but a context that gives evidence of which translation would be more correct. It is difficult to accept the translation of someone who says that he translates perfectly, but clearly shows signs of bias. But I admit that I may be wrong about the translation, although I continue to maintain my position, which is supported by the context and other translators.
I must also point out that a mistake of mine in this text would not change the view of Christ as an anointed son, since he would only be receiving titles, which was never the rule to establish who God is, or even equality with God. Therefore, accepting his view of the text would not change my belief in Jesus as an anointed son, separated and below his father.
The error is a translation error, often guided by ideology, from which you are not free, because as I said before, you usually ignore aspects that go against your view.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, we will then use the various translations, we have:
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; the government is on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace;
Version: English: New Translation in Today's Language
Isaiah 9: 6 For a child has already been born, God has sent us a boy who will be our king. He will be called "Wonderful Counselor", "Mighty God", "Eternal Father", "Prince of Peace".
Version: Portuguese: King James Version
Isaiah 9: 6 For a child is born, a son is given; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Strong God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Corrected and Revised, Faithful
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us, and the principality is on his shoulders, and his name will be called: Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Version: English : New International Version
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son was given to us, and the government is on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor [29], Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: English: King James Version
Isaiah 9: 6 For us a child is born, even us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Version: English: Webster's Bible
Isaías 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Versão: English: American Standard Version (1901)
Isaías 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Versão: English: Basic English Bible
Isaías 9:6 For to us a child has come, to us a son is given; and the government has been placed in his hands; and he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God, Father for ever, Prince of Peace.
Versão: Español: Reina Valera (1909)
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a child is born, I am forgotten; and the principality on his man: and call his name Admirable, Consejero, Dios fuerte, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: Español: Sacred Scriptures (1569)
Isaiah 9: 6 Because we are not born, we are given; and the principality is seated on his man. And it will be called El Admirable, El Consejero, El Dios, El Fuerte, El Padre Eterno, El Príncipe de Paz.
All of them agree. Showing that name, title, is the same thing.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, a council, show reliable evidence with a place to be researched. He spoke based on a document proven worldwide. Another thing. You said, "I've said it before, you often ignore aspects that go against your vision."
You can say what you want it does not mean that what you said is true, when you say something show it, prove it. Do you know how. Take the aspects that I ignored, that are recognized worldwide and show that I do not accept because of my vision. Oh yes you proved what you said, say it by saying anyone says it.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo and by any chance is there a document proven worldwide on this text? I have never heard of it until today. Stamped and signed?? By whom?
Showing several translations, the most famous of which is no proof either, since you yourself warn against ideologies influencing translations. Were the people who translated all free from ideologies? So we remain the same.
In this case, I stay with the Jewish translation, I know that they are not free from ideology (I do not share their ideologies), but in view that they understand more about the subject than most biased translators, and also considering all evident problems of poor textual construction of the translations you cited, of the biblical context of the scriptures, and other evidence I maintain my position.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I will say something, which is the standard of religions. Religions like to destroy concepts that go against their creeds. But universities and different religious groups do not do that. Use an addicted strand as an analysis, and not as a translation. For in biblical societies worldwide there are archaeologists, and linguists, not only Hebrews, but from different places. These build documents, and documents on the basis that if they are wrong, can be canceled. If a Jew really had a translation and not an ideology, really following the concept of translation, all the famous bibles you speak would change, because even universities like Oxford research the texts in depth, free of any religious concept. Translators only. There are Hebrew grammatical rules that are used, and these have to be obeyed, if a Jew disobeys to suit his ideas, that is not a translation. This is a reformulation of the dominant medieval Catholicism over a people. As I said, I don't accept creeds.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, accept your question, and say what you are showing. Write Me + Wander Souza N, I accept the most holy Mother Church ........ as the possessor of heavenly knowledge and by her constituted her creeds I accept to fight against everything and everyone, and to place her creeds above any concepts and sources , which are contrary to it.
And ready we are talking, I will understand that you fight for creeds of your church.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, in the case of Isaiah 9: 6 I defend my view, because there are many indications of what would be the most correct translation of the text, I demonstrated several arguments for this. I do not defend an idea merely because I want it to be so, but because I show evidence that this text was poorly constructed in its translation, and that others with backing translate differently. That's why I stay with them.
I believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah, and God's anointed son.
I don't know any Christian church that uses a Bible with the translation that I defend, do you know?
In your case, it is well known that you defend a particular view. You urgently need to identify yourself through the videos you gave me. The fact of defending or not defending the vision of a religion or sect would not change anything, in relation to defending your vision, it would only make you more self-centered. Accept what is convenient, and conveniently ignore what does not contribute to your idea. That way it is very easy to fool yourself.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, you showed no evidence. You mentioned something that is not recognized, it would have to have a link, or a document of public recognition. You didn't go through any of that. On the contrary, I used dictionaries accepted worldwide and made by renowned linguists such as:
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, STD, LL.D., 1890.
Thayer's Greek Definitions
All of the original Greek words are arranged by the numbering system from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Strong's numbering system arranges most Greek
Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English I
use references accepted worldwide, I don't use versions taken from one religion or another. Every thing I say I put the source, accepted and recognized, and not recognized by such a denomination, I use recognition outside of a vicious denomination.
If I had a particular vision I would not use documents or bases, I would do as you do, not using references accepted worldwide. And I don't do that. I learned that before speaking, look for reliable sources, not concepts of religious beliefs. About Isaiah 9: 6 there is no grammatical break, so it is the safest text, there is no such thing as you mentioned, that this text is controversial and there are fights between translators. Contrary to how I have shown them over the years, they continue to show that the text is translated correctly.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Falso! It is perfectly possible to build a particular vision based on quotes with globally recognized references, many religions do this to defend their ideas, have you never seen ?? Do you think you're the only one who does that ???? They cite the strongest of the most respected scholars, and a plethora of "appeal to authority" as you are doing. So this argument doesn't change the fact that you tend to defend an idea in a biased way.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, prove the trend. I read what is written. What's the trend. Show a text that takes one direction, using the same fonts and show that I take another direction? You accuse but you don't prove.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo the tendency is for you to ignore what is not convenient on purpose, it is to deliver texts anyway when it is convenient, and to analyze more deeply when not.
Anyone can see that. The truth is that if you really used logic as you claim, it would break my arguments more easily and would have left me speechless a long time ago. But he is hindered by his own private vision, for his own vision is not completely palmed by logic. This is the reality.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I ignore unwritten, undocumented things. If you say that I ignore your analysis without recognized documents. Oh yes, but this is not a trend, this is security. I use sources that have a foundation, if the information has a foundation, then I dig deeper, now if I use such a source that I will end up being embarrassed, I will not use it at all.
But this is not a trend, this is security. Show me a safe and recognized source and I will give it my due, show me stories invented by denominational creeds, and I will not accept them.
Do yourself a favor, be practical, add data, you keep talking about what you think, show evidence, show recognized documents, dictionaries, Greek, Hebrew, make this conversation a really theological analysis, I speak, but you dont justify it, you digress in your imagination. Put evidence. Recognized texts. Show it, don't keep telling stories, prove it.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I don't just discuss the Bible with an appeal to authority, I analyze the texts and reason in them. When necessary I turn to the sources, I could give you sources from which I derive what I believe about Isaiah 9: 7, but such sources, in addition to not being the last word and absolute truth, would be fought with you by others. And I saw no need to use them here. What I showed you is the Jewish translation, the Hebrew bible. But you have already chosen your own translation.
Reasoning for yourself on top of each text is still the best way to not be misled or to let the vision be guided by the trend. As I already said, basing your vision on top of recognized quotes does not exempt you from being biased ... Many religions do that too, this is not your privilege. It's just a careful construction that in the end gives you what you want.
If you were only with the Bible in hand, without a quote or reference to help you, how would you understand it? In the same way as with the vision of other people giving you everything in properly separated scraps, added to your own vision?
This discussion is no longer about text x, but has become an appeal to authority on your part. No matter what text I show, you will appeal to authority, you will change the meaning, or translate in a way that you think is appropriate and stagnate there.
You create rules that don't exist as well, and you philosophize more than anything, regarding the personalities of the father and the son for example, because there is no biblical basis to justify with logic what you say in this case.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what is written is what is written. In the old days when I was a child I used a translated bible, and when I went looking for things I didn't find them. For example.
Joh_10: 35 If the law called gods to those to whom the word of God was addressed (and Scripture cannot be annulled),
Where is this verse in the law? You don't find it in the translated because they have changed, the translation.
Exo 21: 6 then his master will take him before the judges, and will bring him to the door, or to the doorway, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl; and he will serve you forever.
In the original there are no judges, there is elohim.
Exo 21: 6 והגישׁו H5066 אדניו H113 אל H413 האלהים H430 והגישׁו H5066 אל H413 הדלת H1817 או H176 אל H413 המזוזה H4201 אצעו H H85
That is why I do not like to be deceived, so you discover what is right and what is wrong. Now be inventing, or looking for sources without a basis, and say that something is like this or otherwise without a basis. There it is not a theological study, it is mere imagination.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, and another I do not create rules, I learn rules. Translation is a sequence of rules, which must be used, it is for English, German, Japanese, and any language, what I do not accept is to invent something that does not exist just to change a verse. This is not translation, this is alteration. I do not accept changes. Whoever she is, or whatever denomination she is. I don't accept creeds, and I don't accept inventions. I accept documents, bases. Without which anyone can invent whatever they want. I have already shown that I accept recognized theological bases, now theologians addicted to creeds, not really.
Imagine if I am going to use texts that speak of Christ, from the perspective of an orthodox Jew. Never that he will accept that that verse speaks of Jesus, no matter how in the face it will be. And then you come to me to use the vision of an orthodox Jew for the existence of Christ. It is like asking the devil to translate the bible, and I still say that this is a good, accepted translation. It's being very childish. Use orthodox Jews to teach about the texts of Jesus' existence.
Only you + Wander Souza N, to get this idea.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I assumed that I may be wrong, and that the Jew's view is really biased, but I on the other hand presented my arguments about the text, and these you were unable to dismantle. They exist, and I may not be completely sure about the text, but I also believe that their translation does not.
We have different methods, you use the appeal to authority in a biased way as well as certain religions that mount your defense by building it with quotes from authorities. It turns out that any official document is liable to corruption and error, it is just another view too, no matter what you say, the only one who could clarify once and for all in a way that left no doubt about the text, is the author. As long as there is evidence to the contrary, there will be doubts as to whether that text is actually translated correctly. Of course, there is no doubt about who is interested. It is more convenient to take advantage of the documentation for and the translations available than to reason against yourself. Your ego will never allow that.
You see, I admit that I may be wrong, but I continue to maintain my position as long as there are suspicious points in the translation of the text. I maintain this position, but remembering that either of the two forms of the text would in no way affect what I believe.
Elias souza 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N so it means that no matter what the bible says, your convictions are important, he proved, you said but you still won't give your arm so you don't want to argue the bible you want to prove that what is written has to be understood in a way that only you know, strange Wander
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza In a way that only I know, I show rational evidence about the text to support me. Already did that.
Who proved what here ??? Using the call to authority is not proof, do you happen to accept my call to authority when I quote, and drop your ideas with him ??? Your texts that I answered are full of citations with recognized references, do you happen to accept them and admit that you are wrong? Let's see, tell us there.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, it's not an appeal to authority, it's translation rules. Translation rules are not an appeal to authority. It is historical, archaeological, and linguistic studies that determine a correct translation. So when you showed that change in Isaiah, I saw that it was a change, not because of an authority, but because it did not respect the translation rules. It totally broke a linearity of translation, and more added an entire word in a place where it does not exist. In other words, what you gave me is not a translation, it does not follow rules, it only follows the Jewish ideology of an anti-Christian people, this is not a translation. In other words, this Jew has to give a translation rule that works for everyone, and not an invented rule that only works on the text he wanted, this is not a translation, this is a change. And that is acceptance of authority,
Elias souza 05/31/2014
Well I didn't see you doing anything, just c was in your head or on an imaginary scoreboard your are your points of view I don't accept and don't agree, what I showed you or posted was what I I believe that God put it in my heart, now, be honest, our friend Rubens gave a knowledge class to speak who is right or wrong is something, now he will say that he didn't corner you in the field of ideas, the guy is. Well Wander the guy has vast knowledge and this is a fact now the truths of our beliefs is something else is not even
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Elias souza, there are things that are knowledge. For example when I translate a text from English I have to follow rules, and they have to be the same. Like the rule of the verb "to be", it is a rule. Furthermore, when you see a text in which the world community says it is one way, and uses translation rules, you cannot have doubts without a translation basis. For example + Wander Souza N, spoke of a text that is an inclusion, in which case he accepts the world community and says to you + Elias souza, that the text is an addition, when he uses a methodology, and choose another methodology when it suits you, that is the quest to only choose what suits you. When we choose a method we choose it for everyone, and + Wander Souza N, it doesn't do that. And he already noticed that he's just trying to curl up now.
N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, but I accept and discard it according to the biblical context and evidence of reasoning, I already said that. The translation rules, even if followed honestly, are not a guarantee of inerrancy, even if translating from English to Portuguese and following the rules, translators always vary the same text, sometimes subtle differences that even change the meaning of the message. Just because the world community says something I am not obliged to accept it blindly. Spiders and scorpions were mistakenly classified as insects by Aristotle and remained so for some time, and even today these animals are mistaken for insects. So what today is considered to be a universal truth tomorrow may change.
Regarding the insertion of 1 John 5: 7, it is obvious that I will accept the support of the authority, but if she said otherwise, and there was only one insertion call, I would remain in my position, as I do in the case of the other text, because there is contextual evidence . It is interesting that in both cases (both the insertion and the suspicious translation of Isaiah) even if I accept the most accepted translation, and that I accept the insertion, neither text would have the power to refute what I believe. In fact I already believed in Isaiah's text as it is, believing exactly what I believe now, only recently after researching some things and stopping to reason in the text did I start to doubt the translation.
The difference between me and Rubens is that I assume to follow a vision of mine, although I don't do it blindly and always know how to respond to anyone who tries to refute me. I always have an argument in my favor to stay in the position I believe in. If I were dismantled in all the flaws of reasoning that I present about the text, and if my doubts were dispelled, I would go back to believing it without problems as the majority accepts it, following the crowd, but nobody has done it until now. Rubens just stomps his feet, saying that the translation is like this and that's it, but we know that translating an old text sometimes involves the translator's discretion, and he is not free from bias just like us. He has no dispassionate vision, he purposely ignores what would damage his vision, and tries to force understandings based on deep analysis of a single term, to discredit a doctrine that the Bible speaks about 50 times in different texts spread throughout the entire Bible, which is the divine name, for example. The bible says that we need to "invoke" the divine name, (Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13) Now, the term invoke referring to the name, leaves no doubt that the bible encourages to use the name. Add that to the number of times the name appears to be used in the daily lives of servants to refer to God, and only with a lot of willpower even to deny it. But it is likely that Rubens will now try to change the sense of invoking, citing authority again. He wants to change the very meaning of names, as if in biblical days names were mere ornaments, as if he could play the same name in one and the other, and not that those names were a representation of individuals. This is playing with our intelligence. I am not a genius, but there is too much.
Of course, I understand that sometimes in the Bible the name has a deeper meaning. God Himself uses his name to describe his qualities and purpose, and in a certain text the name means reputation with God. But that does not mean that the sense of personal name is completely lost. Name remains a name, in all ages.
I want to reiterate that I am not the owner of the truth, and tomorrow I can convince myself that I have been defending a wrong view, should new information and / or flaws in my reasoning arise. But for the time being I maintain my position and I will not follow the crowd as long as I have doubts about the text. I'm sorry, but I can't accept anything, just because someone who is not free from bias claims to have the exact knowledge about the translation.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, a lot of flaws in your reasoning were detected and you still haven't changed. On the name issue. For example Joshua is יהושׁע יהושׁוּע yehôshûa ‛yehôshûa‛
And Jesus is יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa ‛yehôshûa‛ In
other words, either Jesus is Joshua or Joshua is Jesus. So if name were something that fixed the individual, Jesus could not have the same name as Joshua. Name in Hebrew or any language is just a reference system. It's like saying our Father, Father is a reference. I can call God (the Father) God, I can call the son (God), I can call the Father (YHWH), I can call the Lord's angel (YHWH). Everything is a reference, to an attribute. (YHWH) (the existing one), Father (ab originator), I have a video about it at the link below.
Crying out to God
In case research does not know that Jesus and Joshua is the same name? You know, but they write by common usage factor, we chose to use Jesus. In other words, translation is not an option, it is like writing YHWH and putting Lord, YHWH is not the translation for sir, it could be YHWH as eternal, or existing, never sir. And the biblical community knows this and says that they chose to use YHWH at times as a lord as a matter of custom. So one thing is translation, another thing is ideology.
There are biblical phrases that can have different translations, they can but they are peculiar, and it involves concepts of periods or commas, never changes to different words and inclusions of others that are not in the text. An example is:
Luk_23: 43 Jesus answered him: Truly I say to you that today you will be with me in paradise.
Se vermos no grego
Luk 23:43 και ειπεν αυτω TSBο TSBιησους αμην TSBλεγω σοι Aλεγω σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω
In that case, some say, "Truly, truly, I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." In this case, the translation may raise doubts. Things like that, not things that change the entire formatting of a text. In this case of Lucas, one has to look for texts to base which of the two translations is the best. For the ancient unical Greek has no commas, not even lower case. Now there is a logic, a foundation for something to be like this or not. There are no drastic changes in a translation. So Isaiah's text has no such peculiarities of doubt. See that I do not speak I demonstrate. + Wander Souza N should do that. It is respect for the understanding of the other to show the sources, and the way a thing is done.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
About the verses of Joel, and Romans we have.
Joe 2:32 And it will be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; ...
Joe 2:32 (3: 5) והיה H1961 כל H3605 אשׁר H834 יקרא H7121 בשׁם H8034 יהוה H3068 ימלט H4422 כי H3588 בהר H2022 ציון
Rom 10:13 Because: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Rom 10:13 πας γαρ ος αν επικαλεσηται το ονομα κυριου σωθησεται
Romans was written in Greek, and this name of the (Sehor = κυριου) κυριου is supreme, or we have Jo él él Senhor él, Showing that Paul did not consider the name invariable, but as the Hebrew considers the name as a reference title. If it were not so, I would use (YHWH). So again it shows that name involves a title a milestone to refer to someone. As a Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, on the issue of scorpions and insects being classified as insects. This does not involve translation, it involves descriptive standards.
When I divide the animals, into kingdom, phylum class, and so on, I create an organization system. If I decide to remove spiders and scorpions from the insect class, I didn't translate, I just changed my rules. They are different things. I changed it because I thought it was better to change it. But in the past scorpions and spiders were considered insects, it is not a translation error. It is a later decision to change, even if the originator of the classifications has chosen that spiders and scorpions are insects. This is neither a bible nor a translation, I cannot say after a few years that Jesus is not the son of God, because I thought it best to say that. In biology, on the other hand, biologists create names and separate classes according to what they consider, this does not involve analyzing the old, but changing what they want. We don't change the bible,
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I failed this reasoning in the beginning about names.
I don't mean name exclusivity, but distinctiveness. The fact that more than one person has the same name as Jesus, does not mean that we should abandon the name of Jesus, and disregard the person of Jesus as a reference and distinction, does it?
I do not advocate a use of the name of YHWH as a magical object, which when invoked makes something happen and changes, no, but for the sole purpose of distinction. This is visible and notorious that, the hiding of the name greatly facilitated the misunderstanding of the scriptures. He depersonalized God, and gave Christ who is known to everyone by his own name, the whole ibope, because when you have an anonymous God and the strong persona and presence of Christ, as being a co-equal part of God, who will you meet the anonymous god? Of course, Jesus ended up overshadowing the one God, which he himself never wanted, and neither did the apostles equate him to God, but they always distinguished the person from one and the other. The suppression of the name by Jewish superstitions, and its subsequent withdrawal from the scriptures, was what created the perfect environment to install the doctrine of the trinity.
Regarding Isaiah's text, I explained my reasoning about the bad construction of the text above and you didn't dismantle it. He just said that he doesn't see any of that in the translation, but to break my reasoning and show me that I'm wrong, you didn't do that. We are not speaking the same language, you are calling for authority and I am reasoning. The problems continue to exist. The main reason why I dont post sources on this case is that I dont know how to translate Hebrew, so I wont post it here, if I wont be able to discuss at the same level, so Ill just stick to my reasoning. My reasoning and other statements made in the knowledge of Hebrew are enough to maintain my position about not accepting the text in the way you think is the correct one.
As I already admitted that I may be wrong, I am not trying to impose my view of the facts on you, nor do I want any victory in this debate. Being convinced in what I think is enough for me. What I guarantee is that I will still think a lot about this case.
As is Joel 2:32 in bibles that have not removed the distinctive name:
It will happen that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be released; for those who escape will be on Mount Zion and Jerusalem, as Jehovah said, and among those who survive, those whom Jehovah calls.
Joel 2:32
http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/tb/jl/2
In Romans 10:13 Paul referred to whose name as a requirement for salvation?
From "sir", but what sir?
If you check the English version of Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew scriptures, you will see that Paul quoted Joel 2:32. So he spoke of YHWH, even if the text omits, but there is still the doubt, wouldn't Paul have faithfully reproduced what is in Joel? Why would I have said differently? (Are the manuscripts we have today actually the originals, out of Paul's hand?) To corroborate your theory that the name is not a badge, that it can be used to please and does not distinguish the person from God? When Paul expressed this same idea as you, that God's name and titles are the same thing ?? Paul never said that, you just gave the text such an understanding. The text does not replace the name of YHWH with Lord, in order to discard it or even match it.
When did Paul talk about this topic in the scriptures? This is a particular vision of yours, constructed through your particular understanding of some texts.
Both Jesus and Paul quoted from the scriptures that contained the tetragram. (Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8: 3; Psalm 110: 1; Isaiah 61: 1, 2; Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10; 22:44; Luke 4: 16-21)
The question is ... Would Jesus have been carried away by the tradition of the Jews, of not speaking the divine name? Matthew 15: 6-9.
If I believe that the scriptures were inspired there can be no mistake, so if the name appears it is because it is to be invoked, and not taken away. The old testament and the new are part of a single bible, has God changed from the old to the new? What changed were their requirements, through the new covenant, but the God remained the same.
It is a fact that the personality of God loses strength when it leaves you anonymous, even more so as the confusion you make, in not only excluding the name, but saying that it is the same thing as the title. Thus, it remains only to adopt Jesus as equal to God Himself. Now would be the time for me to appeal to the authority, do the highest authorities in the matter agree that the tetragrammaton is not a personal and distinctive name?
What I do know is that this yes unquestionably appears in the writings, and if you say that it does not matter or minimize it, demonstrate that you do not care to be so exact when the subject is not what you defend is not it ?? Since you are so concerned with faithfulness, why not use the most faithful texts instead of mutilated translations? See how biased you are?
You will never admit it, but of course you have taken your own view of the name, and you will turn a blind eye to any evidence, ignore texts and everything.
The executive secretary of the NIV translation, Edwin H. Palmer, Theologian and Scholar, once admitted that the distinguishing name of God cannot be placed in that translation because it would damage the distribution of copies, since only Psalm 23 changes it would already cause these damages, as it is not in the popular collective as `Yahweh is my Shepherd´.
Note: I did not mention the spider case as a comparison, I just demonstrated that a truth considered universal can fall apart.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, everything in life has validation rules. For example, why the Joanine coma is considered non-existent in the Bible. Because we took previously dated documents and did not find the Joanine coma. We took documents after the Jonine coma in old Bibles from other regions and we did not find the Joanine coma, so we concluded that the Joanine coma was included by a copyist. Now let's do the following ideology. João wrote the Joanine coma, but John's copyist servant took the Joanine coma, and passed on multiplied that text. The Catholic copyist found the original John and wrote the Joanine coma, and lost the original John. Thus, documents prior to the Catholic clerk did not have the Joanine coma. See that the first option is undoubtedly the most likely, the second is a highly unlikely idea.
A person could create the second idea and keep saying that the Joanine coma is true. But this is nothing more than ignorance.
You have a whole new testament, written in different places, with different dates, with "kurios", written in all of them and never YHWH. When this happens, you have no logical basis for saying it has been changed.
It's like baptism, you have a text that says "baptizing in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit", and 27 talking about baptizing in the name of Jesus. In this case, doubts can be generated, but it cannot be said that the text is false, as there are no documents that prove the falsehood. In the case of Kúrios this does not happen. Thus YHWH, is a title formation and therefore subject to translation, in the language that describes the title. (existing, eternal, kurios ...) and so on.
What is interesting is that you + Wander Souza N, are working on a system that borders on the miraculous, runs away from the probable and keeps walking in the magician.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I may not have any solid basis on Romans 10:13, but it is not illogical to say that Paul faithfully reproduced the text, much less improbable.
But nothing changes ...
But as for your position on the name, although you don't admit it, it is still your personal view, and not a truth corroborated by the Bible or by logic and facts. Name is name. But you with your bias will never admit it.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I don't understand, you can't understand the basis of a name. I'll show.
A person is called Jacob, it means (heel holder), because when Jacob was born he was holding Esau's heel. This is what the individual is called. Hi (heel insurer). Then some time passes, and the following occurs.
Gen 32:28 Then he said, Thou shalt not be called Jacob, but Israel; because you have fought with God and with men and have prevailed.
Now (heel grip) will not be called (heel grip) now it will be called. Israel (will reign as God), now nobody calls the individual (heel insurer) but yes (will reign as God). See what you name by name is not the Hebrew mode. Hebrew is descriptive, titratable, responsible.
Another case is Abrão (Great Father), wherever that individual walked, they said hi (great father), but a moment came and it was said:
Gen_17: 5 You will no longer be called Abram, but Abraham will be your name; for I have made you the father of many nations;
Abraham (Father of multitudes), the title was no longer (great father) but (father of multitudes), this is a Hebrew name.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, Let me see if I make it easier. There is an individual called Spider man, so in Brazil I will call Spider man. So (I don't like this kind of demonstration) YHWH when in Greek it is Kurios, and when in Portuguese it is eternal.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, I understand perfectly what you mean. Very well explained.
Yes, very good that you know about the names of some biblical characters, but where is it said that the name of God has changed?
But you have your personal vision, I understand that.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
H3068 - יהוה - yehôvâh - yeh-ho-vaw '-
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal;
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
יהוה - yehôvâh - BDB Definition: - Jehovah = the existing One
Brown-Driver-Briggs 'Hebrew Definitions
a proof of the great antiquity of the name: "I AM THAT I AM"
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Jeho' go. (I am; the eternal living one).
Smith's Bible Dictionary by Dr. William Smith (1884)
יהוה - translated into Portuguese é (existing self or eternal)
The name of God in Portuguese is "The eternal" as shown in the biblical dictionaries
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, the meaning of the name is not what I am discussing.
Rubens Caputo 01/06/2014
Not the meaning of the name is the name. (ye = o, hovah = {existing, eternal}) = name (The Eternal).
To facilitate
spider man = (spider man)
Juggernaut = overwhelming
Daisy = Daisy.
Exodus 3:14 God answered Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." He said: Thus you will say in the eyes of Israel: I AM sent me to you.
So what are you discussing?
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I'm arguing that he has a distinctive name, that's all.
You are doing everything to hinder something simple, which is made explicit in the scriptures, everything to satisfy your vision. Something as simple as a name, and you're trying to make it an academic lecture.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, simple? So it's.
Version: English: João Ferreira de Almeida
Amos 5:27 For this reason I will banish you beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is God of hosts.
Version: Portuguese: King James Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore I go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Corrected and Revised, Faithful
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: New International Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will send you into exile, beyond Damascus, says the Lord; God of hosts is his name.
Version: English: King James Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Version: English: Darby Version
Amos 5:27 and I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith Jehovah, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: Webster's Bible
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Version: English: American Standard Version (1901)
Amos 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith Jehovah, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: Basic English Bible
Amos 5:27 And I will send you away as prisoners farther than Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of armies.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo If you take my comments above, you will see that I already admitted that "name" sometimes in the scripture has a deeper meaning, look, that is in one of the answers I gave you . But this in no way eliminates the primary principle and meaning of the word and the usage that is evidenced in the scriptures.
If we erased from existence all the appearances of the distinctive name in the scriptures, which are thousands, and only Isaiah 42: 8 remained, you would still be refuted with that text alone.
But friend, you are very funny, like to appeal to authority, but don't you know that 99% of them say that the tetragram is the distinguishing name of God ?? Is it really necessary to search for references and put them here ???
I know that in this discussion I already gave balls away, but now it is you who is bordering on children. And then he still says he doesn't have a biased view.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, God can have whatever name he wants, he is not bound to obey a church, if he chooses several names for Him, his church has nothing to do with it.
Isa_9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Jesus has several names, and God can choose as many names as he wants, even if his church hopes to oblige him to have only one, God does not obey the creeds of your Church. If he "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.", Then His name is God of hosts. And the more names he says he has. Do you know why? Because he is in charge, it is not your church that is in charge of Him.
But are we going to read Isaiah?
Isa 42: 8 I am the Lord; this is my name; I will not give my glory to others, nor my praise to the sculpted images.
Right there where this Lord is YHWH, and this right is the name, but is it the only name? The text does not say that God has a single name. So God can have as many names as he claims to have.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo rsrsr Yes, that is in your biased view. The text says "this is my name", not "one of my names".
God can have whatever name he wants, but he only presents himself with one in the Bible, the rest are titles attributed to him. So much so that it was the one that was forbidden to use, so much so that the original pronouncement was lost, and that the Catholic Church until recently has been prohibiting its bishops from using.
But as I said, you can follow your vision, the creed is yours. Fanaticism has no age and no church plaque, even those who do not believe in anything today have a biased view, I cannot blame you.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I believe in the scriptures, this writing.
Amo 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
I believe in the bible. This is not fanaticism, this is believing in the scriptures.
About what you said:
The text says "this is my name", not "one of my names"
See the text:
Isa_9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
See also
Isa_7: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and be his name Emanuel.
God can put as many names as he wants and choose as many names as he wants.
Now I believe the bible, if it "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.", I believe because the Lord said. Did you know that he who follows God follows his word? If "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts."
Who am I to say no?
If he says YHWH, great I believe in God. But there are people who want to think that God has to obey doctrines of his denomination. No, God is the Eternal, He controls all things, He sets the rules, He is God, and we obey his words.
+ Wander Souza N, where did you get that from? What is the reference of this content? The Hebrew log verse is written like this: גבור H1368 אביעד
Look אביעד (Eternal Father), see אב (tab) Father.
Text taken from
This is the unpointed Tanach, from the Masoretic text. The word Tanach is a Hebrew acronymn for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings), the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
You are writing based on inventions.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, I am writing based on the closest translation that is the Hebrew, and with contextual support, as I have shown in arguments for you.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
What arguments? I read the text, and do you come with stories? Now I read stone, and you come to tell me that people say it is a stick? What is that? I use the proven documents, I don't use people's imagination. It's written, what's written.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Isaías IS THE WORST TRANSLATED BOOK OF THE HEBREW, recognized even by countless theological universities.
According to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his life. The fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage, and the authors did not apply these titles to Jesus, may be an indication that even the New Testament authors knew that they did not apply to him.
There is yet another basis for relying on the Hebrew translation.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, theological universities? Which are? The most proven book that exists is that of Isaiah, because the oldest document in the Bible that exists is the dead sea manuscript, containing Isaiah. The text refers to the messiah, and calling it messiah receives all the conjectures. But unlike people who are imagining and changing translations. Hebrew has almost no variation in the way of copying the scribes. Isaiah is a book that has prophecies, and such were written the way the prophet wrote, and he wrote just as it was written. What is written is written.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo we are discussing this because you want to because you want to, take your personal name from God (Which by itself, goes against a clear biblical doctrine that covers dozens of verses, not one, even quoting the word "Invoke" with reference to the name, which indicates that the meaning is really that of a personal name in the most common form as we understand it, and not a more philosophical and profound meaning as you intend), equaling titles and everything else, when it does not exist. The bible refers to the personal name of God and says that we need to call on him.
The very fact that the text in Isaiah 9: 6 says that "your name will be" (in the singular) and then presents several titles (Not names, not just one, in the singular) already shows that the construction of the sentence is incorrect, but as I said, you will only see what you want.
It is no use taking the originals and claiming that you are not seeing this, you know that even the most knowledgeable people in Hebrew and Greek often disagree when it comes to the verbal construction of several phrases in the scriptures.
I have already presented several arguments that serve as a basis for the acceptance of the text of the Hebrew Bible, since you are limited to showing the originals, and we know that the construction of a translation into our language can be quite controversial.
That is why I stand firm in my position.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
I don't know anything about controversial translation. The problem with a translation is to match the word to a sentence, not its meaning.
For example (Bereshit bara elohim) (I first created God) and turning around (in the beginning I created God), which is difficult for them, the idea of the word is always the same. Only dictionary is used. You have to read it. It has no variation in meaning.
What I am defending is that what is written is what is written. The bible is written the way it is written. Now you are going to say that x, y and z say that one thing that says "home" is "orange", even though it is written home, and that somewhere else is home? And do you think I'm going to believe in reading the Bible, or the idea of people who don't want to accept what is written?
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
And another one is not in the past, it is written ותהי, and if it were in the present it would be ותה, and it is not written in the present. It is marked as a reference at the time of the sentence. If the phrase is in the future ותהי, it is linked to the future, if the phrase is in the present it is linked in the present. But prayer is in the future, so the י bond becomes the future.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo who translated the Hebrew Bible would also use the same argument as you ... "What I am defending is that what is written is what is written. The Bible is written the way it is Now you're going to say that x, y and z say that one thing that says "home" is "orange", even though it's written home, and that somewhere else is home? "
The difference between you and him is that his translation has more contextual support than yours. The construction of the sentence you defend is suspect, and poorly done as I have already shown.
You don't even know about controversial translation, I know that.
Several supported people have translated and would translate such a different biblical text. Even you, if you were to translate this impartially, without your biased view it probably would not translate how you are presenting it, but the text would undergo at least slight modifications.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
I translate with a dictionary. I don't translate with my idea. I use literal terms. And I apply the word according to the dictionary. Without idealisms. I don't see controversial translation, I see controversial idealisms. For example.
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The person translated verb. Is it verb?
G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
It is logos, logos is not a verb. Logos can be the word, or the message of someone. Never a verb. Verb is an action, it is not about logos. So the problem is not the word, it is the translator's idea. There is no controversial translation, there is idealism of the translator. That's why I read from the original. So it is not a verb, no matter what one intends to do, it will never give a verb. Now if we want to make calls. Logos comes from logy mind, which defines linkage wisdom in Greek, linking John with proverbs, defining Jesus as wisdom. So there is no translation problem, there is an idea of the translator that has nothing to do with the dictionary. Because in the dictionary there is no verb anywhere.
Wander Souza N30 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, and some translations translate as "Logos". It doesn't change anything, we just need to know that.
That is not the point, and the text we were discussing was not John 1: 1. In addition to showing you controversial translations about that text, I also showed you several arguments that evidence my position.
Other people versed in Hebrew support this position, both with the same ideal as me, as opposed. So your theory is not true.
The problem is that you want me to accept the idea that translating an old text is an exact science (I don't know if I used the correct expression, but I hope you understand what I mean), when we know that there are long debates by highly specialized in translating certain passages in the Bible, some with idealism and others not, that go in completely different directions, and some that even show honesty when they admit the translation in a way that does not benefit them.
So I already have my position and you have yours.
Rubens Caputo 30/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, let me see? Its position is that of a medieval, with the Catholic Church. For example, a believer reads something in Latin, and then the priest says, "no", you are reading like this, but it is to read like this ". I must have understood + Wander Souza N, your belief is not in the bible, yes it is in the doctrines of men create. I prefer to follow the rules of translation, as they are the same in all cases. Than the rules linked to a creed of a church. I am not sure which church leads its creed + Wander Souza N, I only know that you accept the creed, as if it were the bible. Sorry, I do not follow the creed of your church. I follow what the bible says, and the bible only as norms of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. I will not follow your creed, as I do not follow any Catholic creed.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, I'm sorry but you follow your own vision. You may not even have a religion, but you translate the Bible the way you want, this is the most dangerous, because you are not willing to admit your mistake. Trust your own wisdom, and so the Bible will always say what you want.
I will repeat ... Do not try to deceive me. Translating ancient texts like Hebrew is not an easy task. You cannot ignore all scholars who study and work on texts like Isaiah 9: 6 and say that you translate "as it is", and so it is the truth. Certainly, when translating, you are giving priority to your side, just as you deliberately ignore arguments that I launched, which are indisputable, such as that of the spokesman who comes in the name of YHWH. You understand that that angel is called YHWH, because YHWH is a title and that's it. He does not read the text he gives me, where YHWH clearly says that "put the name on it". This is just one example that your view of biblical facts is biased. So don't try to be logical, because you are not. You really need to watch the video itself.
05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, Simples show me the grammatical rule that makes the text I showed become the text you wrote. For there is no Hebrew grammatical form that does what you have shown.
What you present to me is what the priests presented, they said. "look, you don't have the capacity to translate, all the translations only priests clearly understand, don't read, because only our reading can explain to you what the scriptures say", as I said I don't accept creed. If you accept it well. I accept the bible.
You asked "where does YHWH clearly say that" put the name on it ""
Exo 23:21 Walk around in awareness, and hear his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion;
"put the name on it" = "because my name is on it."
Let's see King James
Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
(my name is in him), he received the name YHWH.
NVI
Pay attention and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your transgressions, for my name is in him.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Of course the phrase was mine, but doesn't YHWH himself say that the name is on it? Who would have put it? Who sent it?
I advocate research and in-depth verification of every dubious text. When in doubt, it is clear that the correct way to translate is one that is in accordance with the context, and in the case of the passage we discussed, I presented several arguments in favor, I was not just at ease. And I haven't seen you refute some of them.
The grammatical rules at the time of translation are not 100% accurate, they often depend on the translator's criteria. Why are you translating my friend, I must conclude that there will be no mistakes? You think your translation is accurate, but that is a reality ...
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, The text about the name says "because my name is in it", it does not say "I put my name in it", if the text said, "I put my name in it", I would reply to you who put it the name on it. The text says "because my name is in it", so the name becomes position, position. In Hebrew, name represents status. Now translation follows rules, show the rules, not ideologies. Ideology each has its own, translation rules do not. I demonstrated that putting verb instead of word is ideology not translation. Translation is one thing ideology is another. If you take the idea that translating can follow ideological variation and create any concept, then there is no Bible, there are idealisms that anyone seeks to create their own. Such bibles would never reach God. For each one does his own according to his will. It is not so, the free translation of ideologies is the way to see the word of God. And not these speculations based on idealisms, be it of Jews, of Catholics, or any other institution that says that it has to follow what they determine.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo When did I say that translation should follow ideology? What I said is that translating ancient texts such as Hebrew is not something that is always done accurately and easily, because there are difficulties, our language is only difficult, a lot depends on the translator's criteria, and even because you are not the single translator. There are several endorsed translators who disagree with how to translate the same text, some with ideologies and others not. Some are honest and when it comes to translating the text, they damage their own vision. But I think you live stuck in some other world, where only your translation exists, and it must be free of errors.
You stopped at that, that your translation is perfect, as if you had no ideology and were not defending your own vision. You have already shown clear signs of bias since the beginning of this discussion. I admit that I am not free to make this mistake, but what about you? When the text suits you, you deliver it any way it appears in any translation, when not you analyze it in depth to change the meaning to one that corroborates your ideas.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I do not deliver, I accept to debate observing the criteria and not using other texts to translate a text. Translation is one thing, searching for a text here and another text there to change the translation, this is not a translation. The verse is there showing the rules of translation, and not ideologies that I understand. I don't change any sense of text, because I translate a text without observing anything, I translate the text, just the text. If there is a mistake, it has to be translation, not ideology, using translation rules.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Well then, that way you only see what you want in your translation. You fool yourself if you don't think so. I have already shown that the text is controversial, there are people on both sides claiming to have the correct way to translate. When a text proves difficult, I do not use ideology, but a context that gives evidence of which translation would be more correct. It is difficult to accept the translation of someone who says that he translates perfectly, but clearly shows signs of bias. But I admit that I may be wrong about the translation, although I continue to maintain my position, which is supported by the context and other translators.
I must also point out that a mistake of mine in this text would not change the view of Christ as an anointed son, since he would only be receiving titles, which was never the rule to establish who God is, or even equality with God. Therefore, accepting his view of the text would not change my belief in Jesus as an anointed son, separated and below his father.
The error is a translation error, often guided by ideology, from which you are not free, because as I said before, you usually ignore aspects that go against your view.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, we will then use the various translations, we have:
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; the government is on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace;
Version: English: New Translation in Today's Language
Isaiah 9: 6 For a child has already been born, God has sent us a boy who will be our king. He will be called "Wonderful Counselor", "Mighty God", "Eternal Father", "Prince of Peace".
Version: Portuguese: King James Version
Isaiah 9: 6 For a child is born, a son is given; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Strong God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Corrected and Revised, Faithful
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us, and the principality is on his shoulders, and his name will be called: Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Version: English : New International Version
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son was given to us, and the government is on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor [29], Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: English: King James Version
Isaiah 9: 6 For us a child is born, even us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Version: English: Webster's Bible
Isaías 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Versão: English: American Standard Version (1901)
Isaías 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Versão: English: Basic English Bible
Isaías 9:6 For to us a child has come, to us a son is given; and the government has been placed in his hands; and he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God, Father for ever, Prince of Peace.
Versão: Español: Reina Valera (1909)
Isaiah 9: 6 Because a child is born, I am forgotten; and the principality on his man: and call his name Admirable, Consejero, Dios fuerte, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Version: Español: Sacred Scriptures (1569)
Isaiah 9: 6 Because we are not born, we are given; and the principality is seated on his man. And it will be called El Admirable, El Consejero, El Dios, El Fuerte, El Padre Eterno, El Príncipe de Paz.
All of them agree. Showing that name, title, is the same thing.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, a council, show reliable evidence with a place to be researched. He spoke based on a document proven worldwide. Another thing. You said, "I've said it before, you often ignore aspects that go against your vision."
You can say what you want it does not mean that what you said is true, when you say something show it, prove it. Do you know how. Take the aspects that I ignored, that are recognized worldwide and show that I do not accept because of my vision. Oh yes you proved what you said, say it by saying anyone says it.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo and by any chance is there a document proven worldwide on this text? I have never heard of it until today. Stamped and signed?? By whom?
Showing several translations, the most famous of which is no proof either, since you yourself warn against ideologies influencing translations. Were the people who translated all free from ideologies? So we remain the same.
In this case, I stay with the Jewish translation, I know that they are not free from ideology (I do not share their ideologies), but in view that they understand more about the subject than most biased translators, and also considering all evident problems of poor textual construction of the translations you cited, of the biblical context of the scriptures, and other evidence I maintain my position.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I will say something, which is the standard of religions. Religions like to destroy concepts that go against their creeds. But universities and different religious groups do not do that. Use an addicted strand as an analysis, and not as a translation. For in biblical societies worldwide there are archaeologists, and linguists, not only Hebrews, but from different places. These build documents, and documents on the basis that if they are wrong, can be canceled. If a Jew really had a translation and not an ideology, really following the concept of translation, all the famous bibles you speak would change, because even universities like Oxford research the texts in depth, free of any religious concept. Translators only. There are Hebrew grammatical rules that are used, and these have to be obeyed, if a Jew disobeys to suit his ideas, that is not a translation. This is a reformulation of the dominant medieval Catholicism over a people. As I said, I don't accept creeds.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, accept your question, and say what you are showing. Write Me + Wander Souza N, I accept the most holy Mother Church ........ as the possessor of heavenly knowledge and by her constituted her creeds I accept to fight against everything and everyone, and to place her creeds above any concepts and sources , which are contrary to it.
And ready we are talking, I will understand that you fight for creeds of your church.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, in the case of Isaiah 9: 6 I defend my view, because there are many indications of what would be the most correct translation of the text, I demonstrated several arguments for this. I do not defend an idea merely because I want it to be so, but because I show evidence that this text was poorly constructed in its translation, and that others with backing translate differently. That's why I stay with them.
I believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah, and God's anointed son.
I don't know any Christian church that uses a Bible with the translation that I defend, do you know?
In your case, it is well known that you defend a particular view. You urgently need to identify yourself through the videos you gave me. The fact of defending or not defending the vision of a religion or sect would not change anything, in relation to defending your vision, it would only make you more self-centered. Accept what is convenient, and conveniently ignore what does not contribute to your idea. That way it is very easy to fool yourself.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, you showed no evidence. You mentioned something that is not recognized, it would have to have a link, or a document of public recognition. You didn't go through any of that. On the contrary, I used dictionaries accepted worldwide and made by renowned linguists such as:
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, STD, LL.D., 1890.
Thayer's Greek Definitions
All of the original Greek words are arranged by the numbering system from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Strong's numbering system arranges most Greek
Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English I
use references accepted worldwide, I don't use versions taken from one religion or another. Every thing I say I put the source, accepted and recognized, and not recognized by such a denomination, I use recognition outside of a vicious denomination.
If I had a particular vision I would not use documents or bases, I would do as you do, not using references accepted worldwide. And I don't do that. I learned that before speaking, look for reliable sources, not concepts of religious beliefs. About Isaiah 9: 6 there is no grammatical break, so it is the safest text, there is no such thing as you mentioned, that this text is controversial and there are fights between translators. Contrary to how I have shown them over the years, they continue to show that the text is translated correctly.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Falso! It is perfectly possible to build a particular vision based on quotes with globally recognized references, many religions do this to defend their ideas, have you never seen ?? Do you think you're the only one who does that ???? They cite the strongest of the most respected scholars, and a plethora of "appeal to authority" as you are doing. So this argument doesn't change the fact that you tend to defend an idea in a biased way.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, prove the trend. I read what is written. What's the trend. Show a text that takes one direction, using the same fonts and show that I take another direction? You accuse but you don't prove.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo the tendency is for you to ignore what is not convenient on purpose, it is to deliver texts anyway when it is convenient, and to analyze more deeply when not.
Anyone can see that. The truth is that if you really used logic as you claim, it would break my arguments more easily and would have left me speechless a long time ago. But he is hindered by his own private vision, for his own vision is not completely palmed by logic. This is the reality.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I ignore unwritten, undocumented things. If you say that I ignore your analysis without recognized documents. Oh yes, but this is not a trend, this is security. I use sources that have a foundation, if the information has a foundation, then I dig deeper, now if I use such a source that I will end up being embarrassed, I will not use it at all.
But this is not a trend, this is security. Show me a safe and recognized source and I will give it my due, show me stories invented by denominational creeds, and I will not accept them.
Do yourself a favor, be practical, add data, you keep talking about what you think, show evidence, show recognized documents, dictionaries, Greek, Hebrew, make this conversation a really theological analysis, I speak, but you dont justify it, you digress in your imagination. Put evidence. Recognized texts. Show it, don't keep telling stories, prove it.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I don't just discuss the Bible with an appeal to authority, I analyze the texts and reason in them. When necessary I turn to the sources, I could give you sources from which I derive what I believe about Isaiah 9: 7, but such sources, in addition to not being the last word and absolute truth, would be fought with you by others. And I saw no need to use them here. What I showed you is the Jewish translation, the Hebrew bible. But you have already chosen your own translation.
Reasoning for yourself on top of each text is still the best way to not be misled or to let the vision be guided by the trend. As I already said, basing your vision on top of recognized quotes does not exempt you from being biased ... Many religions do that too, this is not your privilege. It's just a careful construction that in the end gives you what you want.
If you were only with the Bible in hand, without a quote or reference to help you, how would you understand it? In the same way as with the vision of other people giving you everything in properly separated scraps, added to your own vision?
This discussion is no longer about text x, but has become an appeal to authority on your part. No matter what text I show, you will appeal to authority, you will change the meaning, or translate in a way that you think is appropriate and stagnate there.
You create rules that don't exist as well, and you philosophize more than anything, regarding the personalities of the father and the son for example, because there is no biblical basis to justify with logic what you say in this case.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what is written is what is written. In the old days when I was a child I used a translated bible, and when I went looking for things I didn't find them. For example.
Joh_10: 35 If the law called gods to those to whom the word of God was addressed (and Scripture cannot be annulled),
Where is this verse in the law? You don't find it in the translated because they have changed, the translation.
Exo 21: 6 then his master will take him before the judges, and will bring him to the door, or to the doorway, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl; and he will serve you forever.
In the original there are no judges, there is elohim.
Exo 21: 6 והגישׁו H5066 אדניו H113 אל H413 האלהים H430 והגישׁו H5066 אל H413 הדלת H1817 או H176 אל H413 המזוזה H4201 אצעו H H85
That is why I do not like to be deceived, so you discover what is right and what is wrong. Now be inventing, or looking for sources without a basis, and say that something is like this or otherwise without a basis. There it is not a theological study, it is mere imagination.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, and another I do not create rules, I learn rules. Translation is a sequence of rules, which must be used, it is for English, German, Japanese, and any language, what I do not accept is to invent something that does not exist just to change a verse. This is not translation, this is alteration. I do not accept changes. Whoever she is, or whatever denomination she is. I don't accept creeds, and I don't accept inventions. I accept documents, bases. Without which anyone can invent whatever they want. I have already shown that I accept recognized theological bases, now theologians addicted to creeds, not really.
Imagine if I am going to use texts that speak of Christ, from the perspective of an orthodox Jew. Never that he will accept that that verse speaks of Jesus, no matter how in the face it will be. And then you come to me to use the vision of an orthodox Jew for the existence of Christ. It is like asking the devil to translate the bible, and I still say that this is a good, accepted translation. It's being very childish. Use orthodox Jews to teach about the texts of Jesus' existence.
Only you + Wander Souza N, to get this idea.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I assumed that I may be wrong, and that the Jew's view is really biased, but I on the other hand presented my arguments about the text, and these you were unable to dismantle. They exist, and I may not be completely sure about the text, but I also believe that their translation does not.
We have different methods, you use the appeal to authority in a biased way as well as certain religions that mount your defense by building it with quotes from authorities. It turns out that any official document is liable to corruption and error, it is just another view too, no matter what you say, the only one who could clarify once and for all in a way that left no doubt about the text, is the author. As long as there is evidence to the contrary, there will be doubts as to whether that text is actually translated correctly. Of course, there is no doubt about who is interested. It is more convenient to take advantage of the documentation for and the translations available than to reason against yourself. Your ego will never allow that.
You see, I admit that I may be wrong, but I continue to maintain my position as long as there are suspicious points in the translation of the text. I maintain this position, but remembering that either of the two forms of the text would in no way affect what I believe.
Elias souza 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N so it means that no matter what the bible says, your convictions are important, he proved, you said but you still won't give your arm so you don't want to argue the bible you want to prove that what is written has to be understood in a way that only you know, strange Wander
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza In a way that only I know, I show rational evidence about the text to support me. Already did that.
Who proved what here ??? Using the call to authority is not proof, do you happen to accept my call to authority when I quote, and drop your ideas with him ??? Your texts that I answered are full of citations with recognized references, do you happen to accept them and admit that you are wrong? Let's see, tell us there.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, it's not an appeal to authority, it's translation rules. Translation rules are not an appeal to authority. It is historical, archaeological, and linguistic studies that determine a correct translation. So when you showed that change in Isaiah, I saw that it was a change, not because of an authority, but because it did not respect the translation rules. It totally broke a linearity of translation, and more added an entire word in a place where it does not exist. In other words, what you gave me is not a translation, it does not follow rules, it only follows the Jewish ideology of an anti-Christian people, this is not a translation. In other words, this Jew has to give a translation rule that works for everyone, and not an invented rule that only works on the text he wanted, this is not a translation, this is a change. And that is acceptance of authority,
Elias souza 05/31/2014
Well I didn't see you doing anything, just c was in your head or on an imaginary scoreboard your are your points of view I don't accept and don't agree, what I showed you or posted was what I I believe that God put it in my heart, now, be honest, our friend Rubens gave a knowledge class to speak who is right or wrong is something, now he will say that he didn't corner you in the field of ideas, the guy is. Well Wander the guy has vast knowledge and this is a fact now the truths of our beliefs is something else is not even
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Elias souza, there are things that are knowledge. For example when I translate a text from English I have to follow rules, and they have to be the same. Like the rule of the verb "to be", it is a rule. Furthermore, when you see a text in which the world community says it is one way, and uses translation rules, you cannot have doubts without a translation basis. For example + Wander Souza N, spoke of a text that is an inclusion, in which case he accepts the world community and says to you + Elias souza, that the text is an addition, when he uses a methodology, and choose another methodology when it suits you, that is the quest to only choose what suits you. When we choose a method we choose it for everyone, and + Wander Souza N, it doesn't do that. And he already noticed that he's just trying to curl up now.
N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, but I accept and discard it according to the biblical context and evidence of reasoning, I already said that. The translation rules, even if followed honestly, are not a guarantee of inerrancy, even if translating from English to Portuguese and following the rules, translators always vary the same text, sometimes subtle differences that even change the meaning of the message. Just because the world community says something I am not obliged to accept it blindly. Spiders and scorpions were mistakenly classified as insects by Aristotle and remained so for some time, and even today these animals are mistaken for insects. So what today is considered to be a universal truth tomorrow may change.
Regarding the insertion of 1 John 5: 7, it is obvious that I will accept the support of the authority, but if she said otherwise, and there was only one insertion call, I would remain in my position, as I do in the case of the other text, because there is contextual evidence . It is interesting that in both cases (both the insertion and the suspicious translation of Isaiah) even if I accept the most accepted translation, and that I accept the insertion, neither text would have the power to refute what I believe. In fact I already believed in Isaiah's text as it is, believing exactly what I believe now, only recently after researching some things and stopping to reason in the text did I start to doubt the translation.
The difference between me and Rubens is that I assume to follow a vision of mine, although I don't do it blindly and always know how to respond to anyone who tries to refute me. I always have an argument in my favor to stay in the position I believe in. If I were dismantled in all the flaws of reasoning that I present about the text, and if my doubts were dispelled, I would go back to believing it without problems as the majority accepts it, following the crowd, but nobody has done it until now. Rubens just stomps his feet, saying that the translation is like this and that's it, but we know that translating an old text sometimes involves the translator's discretion, and he is not free from bias just like us. He has no dispassionate vision, he purposely ignores what would damage his vision, and tries to force understandings based on deep analysis of a single term, to discredit a doctrine that the Bible speaks about 50 times in different texts spread throughout the entire Bible, which is the divine name, for example. The bible says that we need to "invoke" the divine name, (Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13) Now, the term invoke referring to the name, leaves no doubt that the bible encourages to use the name. Add that to the number of times the name appears to be used in the daily lives of servants to refer to God, and only with a lot of willpower even to deny it. But it is likely that Rubens will now try to change the sense of invoking, citing authority again. He wants to change the very meaning of names, as if in biblical days names were mere ornaments, as if he could play the same name in one and the other, and not that those names were a representation of individuals. This is playing with our intelligence. I am not a genius, but there is too much.
Of course, I understand that sometimes in the Bible the name has a deeper meaning. God Himself uses his name to describe his qualities and purpose, and in a certain text the name means reputation with God. But that does not mean that the sense of personal name is completely lost. Name remains a name, in all ages.
I want to reiterate that I am not the owner of the truth, and tomorrow I can convince myself that I have been defending a wrong view, should new information and / or flaws in my reasoning arise. But for the time being I maintain my position and I will not follow the crowd as long as I have doubts about the text. I'm sorry, but I can't accept anything, just because someone who is not free from bias claims to have the exact knowledge about the translation.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, a lot of flaws in your reasoning were detected and you still haven't changed. On the name issue. For example Joshua is יהושׁע יהושׁוּע yehôshûa ‛yehôshûa‛
And Jesus is יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa ‛yehôshûa‛ In
other words, either Jesus is Joshua or Joshua is Jesus. So if name were something that fixed the individual, Jesus could not have the same name as Joshua. Name in Hebrew or any language is just a reference system. It's like saying our Father, Father is a reference. I can call God (the Father) God, I can call the son (God), I can call the Father (YHWH), I can call the Lord's angel (YHWH). Everything is a reference, to an attribute. (YHWH) (the existing one), Father (ab originator), I have a video about it at the link below.
Crying out to God
In case research does not know that Jesus and Joshua is the same name? You know, but they write by common usage factor, we chose to use Jesus. In other words, translation is not an option, it is like writing YHWH and putting Lord, YHWH is not the translation for sir, it could be YHWH as eternal, or existing, never sir. And the biblical community knows this and says that they chose to use YHWH at times as a lord as a matter of custom. So one thing is translation, another thing is ideology.
There are biblical phrases that can have different translations, they can but they are peculiar, and it involves concepts of periods or commas, never changes to different words and inclusions of others that are not in the text. An example is:
Luk_23: 43 Jesus answered him: Truly I say to you that today you will be with me in paradise.
Se vermos no grego
Luk 23:43 και ειπεν αυτω TSBο TSBιησους αμην TSBλεγω σοι Aλεγω σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω
In that case, some say, "Truly, truly, I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." In this case, the translation may raise doubts. Things like that, not things that change the entire formatting of a text. In this case of Lucas, one has to look for texts to base which of the two translations is the best. For the ancient unical Greek has no commas, not even lower case. Now there is a logic, a foundation for something to be like this or not. There are no drastic changes in a translation. So Isaiah's text has no such peculiarities of doubt. See that I do not speak I demonstrate. + Wander Souza N should do that. It is respect for the understanding of the other to show the sources, and the way a thing is done.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
About the verses of Joel, and Romans we have.
Joe 2:32 And it will be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; ...
Joe 2:32 (3: 5) והיה H1961 כל H3605 אשׁר H834 יקרא H7121 בשׁם H8034 יהוה H3068 ימלט H4422 כי H3588 בהר H2022 ציון
Rom 10:13 Because: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Rom 10:13 πας γαρ ος αν επικαλεσηται το ονομα κυριου σωθησεται
Romans was written in Greek, and this name of the (Sehor = κυριου) κυριου is supreme, or we have Jo él él Senhor él, Showing that Paul did not consider the name invariable, but as the Hebrew considers the name as a reference title. If it were not so, I would use (YHWH). So again it shows that name involves a title a milestone to refer to someone. As a Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, on the issue of scorpions and insects being classified as insects. This does not involve translation, it involves descriptive standards.
When I divide the animals, into kingdom, phylum class, and so on, I create an organization system. If I decide to remove spiders and scorpions from the insect class, I didn't translate, I just changed my rules. They are different things. I changed it because I thought it was better to change it. But in the past scorpions and spiders were considered insects, it is not a translation error. It is a later decision to change, even if the originator of the classifications has chosen that spiders and scorpions are insects. This is neither a bible nor a translation, I cannot say after a few years that Jesus is not the son of God, because I thought it best to say that. In biology, on the other hand, biologists create names and separate classes according to what they consider, this does not involve analyzing the old, but changing what they want. We don't change the bible,
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I failed this reasoning in the beginning about names.
I don't mean name exclusivity, but distinctiveness. The fact that more than one person has the same name as Jesus, does not mean that we should abandon the name of Jesus, and disregard the person of Jesus as a reference and distinction, does it?
I do not advocate a use of the name of YHWH as a magical object, which when invoked makes something happen and changes, no, but for the sole purpose of distinction. This is visible and notorious that, the hiding of the name greatly facilitated the misunderstanding of the scriptures. He depersonalized God, and gave Christ who is known to everyone by his own name, the whole ibope, because when you have an anonymous God and the strong persona and presence of Christ, as being a co-equal part of God, who will you meet the anonymous god? Of course, Jesus ended up overshadowing the one God, which he himself never wanted, and neither did the apostles equate him to God, but they always distinguished the person from one and the other. The suppression of the name by Jewish superstitions, and its subsequent withdrawal from the scriptures, was what created the perfect environment to install the doctrine of the trinity.
Regarding Isaiah's text, I explained my reasoning about the bad construction of the text above and you didn't dismantle it. He just said that he doesn't see any of that in the translation, but to break my reasoning and show me that I'm wrong, you didn't do that. We are not speaking the same language, you are calling for authority and I am reasoning. The problems continue to exist. The main reason why I dont post sources on this case is that I dont know how to translate Hebrew, so I wont post it here, if I wont be able to discuss at the same level, so Ill just stick to my reasoning. My reasoning and other statements made in the knowledge of Hebrew are enough to maintain my position about not accepting the text in the way you think is the correct one.
As I already admitted that I may be wrong, I am not trying to impose my view of the facts on you, nor do I want any victory in this debate. Being convinced in what I think is enough for me. What I guarantee is that I will still think a lot about this case.
As is Joel 2:32 in bibles that have not removed the distinctive name:
It will happen that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be released; for those who escape will be on Mount Zion and Jerusalem, as Jehovah said, and among those who survive, those whom Jehovah calls.
Joel 2:32
http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/tb/jl/2
In Romans 10:13 Paul referred to whose name as a requirement for salvation?
From "sir", but what sir?
If you check the English version of Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew scriptures, you will see that Paul quoted Joel 2:32. So he spoke of YHWH, even if the text omits, but there is still the doubt, wouldn't Paul have faithfully reproduced what is in Joel? Why would I have said differently? (Are the manuscripts we have today actually the originals, out of Paul's hand?) To corroborate your theory that the name is not a badge, that it can be used to please and does not distinguish the person from God? When Paul expressed this same idea as you, that God's name and titles are the same thing ?? Paul never said that, you just gave the text such an understanding. The text does not replace the name of YHWH with Lord, in order to discard it or even match it.
When did Paul talk about this topic in the scriptures? This is a particular vision of yours, constructed through your particular understanding of some texts.
Both Jesus and Paul quoted from the scriptures that contained the tetragram. (Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8: 3; Psalm 110: 1; Isaiah 61: 1, 2; Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10; 22:44; Luke 4: 16-21)
The question is ... Would Jesus have been carried away by the tradition of the Jews, of not speaking the divine name? Matthew 15: 6-9.
If I believe that the scriptures were inspired there can be no mistake, so if the name appears it is because it is to be invoked, and not taken away. The old testament and the new are part of a single bible, has God changed from the old to the new? What changed were their requirements, through the new covenant, but the God remained the same.
It is a fact that the personality of God loses strength when it leaves you anonymous, even more so as the confusion you make, in not only excluding the name, but saying that it is the same thing as the title. Thus, it remains only to adopt Jesus as equal to God Himself. Now would be the time for me to appeal to the authority, do the highest authorities in the matter agree that the tetragrammaton is not a personal and distinctive name?
What I do know is that this yes unquestionably appears in the writings, and if you say that it does not matter or minimize it, demonstrate that you do not care to be so exact when the subject is not what you defend is not it ?? Since you are so concerned with faithfulness, why not use the most faithful texts instead of mutilated translations? See how biased you are?
You will never admit it, but of course you have taken your own view of the name, and you will turn a blind eye to any evidence, ignore texts and everything.
The executive secretary of the NIV translation, Edwin H. Palmer, Theologian and Scholar, once admitted that the distinguishing name of God cannot be placed in that translation because it would damage the distribution of copies, since only Psalm 23 changes it would already cause these damages, as it is not in the popular collective as `Yahweh is my Shepherd´.
Note: I did not mention the spider case as a comparison, I just demonstrated that a truth considered universal can fall apart.
Rubens Caputo 31/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, everything in life has validation rules. For example, why the Joanine coma is considered non-existent in the Bible. Because we took previously dated documents and did not find the Joanine coma. We took documents after the Jonine coma in old Bibles from other regions and we did not find the Joanine coma, so we concluded that the Joanine coma was included by a copyist. Now let's do the following ideology. João wrote the Joanine coma, but John's copyist servant took the Joanine coma, and passed on multiplied that text. The Catholic copyist found the original John and wrote the Joanine coma, and lost the original John. Thus, documents prior to the Catholic clerk did not have the Joanine coma. See that the first option is undoubtedly the most likely, the second is a highly unlikely idea.
A person could create the second idea and keep saying that the Joanine coma is true. But this is nothing more than ignorance.
You have a whole new testament, written in different places, with different dates, with "kurios", written in all of them and never YHWH. When this happens, you have no logical basis for saying it has been changed.
It's like baptism, you have a text that says "baptizing in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit", and 27 talking about baptizing in the name of Jesus. In this case, doubts can be generated, but it cannot be said that the text is false, as there are no documents that prove the falsehood. In the case of Kúrios this does not happen. Thus YHWH, is a title formation and therefore subject to translation, in the language that describes the title. (existing, eternal, kurios ...) and so on.
What is interesting is that you + Wander Souza N, are working on a system that borders on the miraculous, runs away from the probable and keeps walking in the magician.
Wander Souza N31 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I may not have any solid basis on Romans 10:13, but it is not illogical to say that Paul faithfully reproduced the text, much less improbable.
But nothing changes ...
But as for your position on the name, although you don't admit it, it is still your personal view, and not a truth corroborated by the Bible or by logic and facts. Name is name. But you with your bias will never admit it.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I don't understand, you can't understand the basis of a name. I'll show.
A person is called Jacob, it means (heel holder), because when Jacob was born he was holding Esau's heel. This is what the individual is called. Hi (heel insurer). Then some time passes, and the following occurs.
Gen 32:28 Then he said, Thou shalt not be called Jacob, but Israel; because you have fought with God and with men and have prevailed.
Now (heel grip) will not be called (heel grip) now it will be called. Israel (will reign as God), now nobody calls the individual (heel insurer) but yes (will reign as God). See what you name by name is not the Hebrew mode. Hebrew is descriptive, titratable, responsible.
Another case is Abrão (Great Father), wherever that individual walked, they said hi (great father), but a moment came and it was said:
Gen_17: 5 You will no longer be called Abram, but Abraham will be your name; for I have made you the father of many nations;
Abraham (Father of multitudes), the title was no longer (great father) but (father of multitudes), this is a Hebrew name.
Rubens Caputo 05/31/2014
+ Wander Souza N, Let me see if I make it easier. There is an individual called Spider man, so in Brazil I will call Spider man. So (I don't like this kind of demonstration) YHWH when in Greek it is Kurios, and when in Portuguese it is eternal.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, I understand perfectly what you mean. Very well explained.
Yes, very good that you know about the names of some biblical characters, but where is it said that the name of God has changed?
But you have your personal vision, I understand that.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
H3068 - יהוה - yehôvâh - yeh-ho-vaw '-
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal;
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
יהוה - yehôvâh - BDB Definition: - Jehovah = the existing One
Brown-Driver-Briggs 'Hebrew Definitions
a proof of the great antiquity of the name: "I AM THAT I AM"
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Jeho' go. (I am; the eternal living one).
Smith's Bible Dictionary by Dr. William Smith (1884)
יהוה - translated into Portuguese é (existing self or eternal)
The name of God in Portuguese is "The eternal" as shown in the biblical dictionaries
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, the meaning of the name is not what I am discussing.
Rubens Caputo 01/06/2014
Not the meaning of the name is the name. (ye = o, hovah = {existing, eternal}) = name (The Eternal).
To facilitate
spider man = (spider man)
Juggernaut = overwhelming
Daisy = Daisy.
Exodus 3:14 God answered Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." He said: Thus you will say in the eyes of Israel: I AM sent me to you.
So what are you discussing?
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I'm arguing that he has a distinctive name, that's all.
You are doing everything to hinder something simple, which is made explicit in the scriptures, everything to satisfy your vision. Something as simple as a name, and you're trying to make it an academic lecture.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, simple? So it's.
Version: English: João Ferreira de Almeida
Amos 5:27 For this reason I will banish you beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is God of hosts.
Version: Portuguese: King James Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore I go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Corrected and Revised, Faithful
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: New International Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will send you into exile, beyond Damascus, says the Lord; God of hosts is his name.
Version: English: King James Version
Amos 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Version: English: Darby Version
Amos 5:27 and I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith Jehovah, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: Webster's Bible
Amos 5:27 Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Version: English: American Standard Version (1901)
Amos 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith Jehovah, whose name is the God of hosts.
Version: English: Basic English Bible
Amos 5:27 And I will send you away as prisoners farther than Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of armies.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo If you take my comments above, you will see that I already admitted that "name" sometimes in the scripture has a deeper meaning, look, that is in one of the answers I gave you . But this in no way eliminates the primary principle and meaning of the word and the usage that is evidenced in the scriptures.
If we erased from existence all the appearances of the distinctive name in the scriptures, which are thousands, and only Isaiah 42: 8 remained, you would still be refuted with that text alone.
But friend, you are very funny, like to appeal to authority, but don't you know that 99% of them say that the tetragram is the distinguishing name of God ?? Is it really necessary to search for references and put them here ???
I know that in this discussion I already gave balls away, but now it is you who is bordering on children. And then he still says he doesn't have a biased view.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, God can have whatever name he wants, he is not bound to obey a church, if he chooses several names for Him, his church has nothing to do with it.
Isa_9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Jesus has several names, and God can choose as many names as he wants, even if his church hopes to oblige him to have only one, God does not obey the creeds of your Church. If he "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.", Then His name is God of hosts. And the more names he says he has. Do you know why? Because he is in charge, it is not your church that is in charge of Him.
But are we going to read Isaiah?
Isa 42: 8 I am the Lord; this is my name; I will not give my glory to others, nor my praise to the sculpted images.
Right there where this Lord is YHWH, and this right is the name, but is it the only name? The text does not say that God has a single name. So God can have as many names as he claims to have.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo rsrsr Yes, that is in your biased view. The text says "this is my name", not "one of my names".
God can have whatever name he wants, but he only presents himself with one in the Bible, the rest are titles attributed to him. So much so that it was the one that was forbidden to use, so much so that the original pronouncement was lost, and that the Catholic Church until recently has been prohibiting its bishops from using.
But as I said, you can follow your vision, the creed is yours. Fanaticism has no age and no church plaque, even those who do not believe in anything today have a biased view, I cannot blame you.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I believe in the scriptures, this writing.
Amo 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
I believe in the bible. This is not fanaticism, this is believing in the scriptures.
About what you said:
The text says "this is my name", not "one of my names"
See the text:
Isa_9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
See also
Isa_7: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and be his name Emanuel.
God can put as many names as he wants and choose as many names as he wants.
Now I believe the bible, if it "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.", I believe because the Lord said. Did you know that he who follows God follows his word? If "says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts."
Who am I to say no?
If he says YHWH, great I believe in God. But there are people who want to think that God has to obey doctrines of his denomination. No, God is the Eternal, He controls all things, He sets the rules, He is God, and we obey his words.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags
divinity, debate, study, analysis