Explain the selective translation of words

[HaShev]

Can Christians explain why they translate the words anointed to Christ, guardian to Nazarene, and perfect to sinless throughout the NT until they get to Ezekiel 28 about Lucifer when they leave the translation as anointed cherub seen as perfect to avoid detection of Jesus being Lucifer?
-Ezekiel 28:14-15

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Let's start with 'alma' and work from there.

 

[Meriweather]

Can Christians explain why they translate the words anointed to Christ, guardian to Nazarene, and perfect to sinless throughout the NT until they get to Ezekiel 28 about Lucifer when they leave the translation as anointed cherub seen as perfect to avoid detection of Jesus being Lucifer?
-Ezekiel 28:14-15

I am not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. First, where are you seeing Lucifer? Ezekiel is referencing the King of Tyre, who was not a good man. References to Cherub usually describes angels in place to guard and protect what God indicates.

 

[HaShev]

Can Christians explain why they translate the words anointed to Christ, guardian to Nazarene, and perfect to sinless throughout the NT until they get to Ezekiel 28 about Lucifer when they leave the translation as anointed cherub seen as perfect to avoid detection of Jesus being Lucifer?
-Ezekiel 28:14-15

I am not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. First, where are you seeing Lucifer? Ezekiel is referencing the King of Tyre, who was not a good man. References to Cherub usually describes angels in place to guard and protect what God indicates.

Your reply needs to be specific as I made it clear the english anointed is called Christ in Greek and NT usage and Cherub (guardian) is translated in Hebrew as Nazarei.
Nazarene isn't a person from Nazareth (Nazarite is), it means Guardian (cherub) of the new testament=Nazarene.
Why would your faith translate into languages of choice when convenient to hide damaging terms and fulfillments? You just admited this selective use of words confused you even though it was right in front of you all this time. The use of words were not recognized by you which reveals why they selectively transkate the way they do.
Now about Lucifer in Ezekiel 28.
Your preachers use those passage for Lucifer.
read the full chapter:Son of perdition (i.e. falls to the pit) Jesus fell to hades Acts 2:27,
1Peter 3:19, & Apostles creed.
Seas=slang term they used for Rome
Tyrus (the rock) was controlled by Rome
You call Jesus the King of the Rock but also Israel was in peace with Tyre at that time period Ezekiel context of chapters lead to.
The words Created (images icons are created by man) and walked the garden(serpent=false prophet) are other clues that it's not about a literal king. No king fell by the hands of Rome (seas) for claiming to be a god, Jesus however did.
No king was called Christ Nazarene nor perfect
(sinless) but Jesus was called that.
Remember Jesus was popular in Tyre says NT therefore prince (one who sacrifices for others) of Tyre.
Ezekiel 28 son of perdition (i.e. Lucifer) is Jesus, no other prophet could ever be lucifer
because none were ever deemed gods nor sinless nor guardian(Nazarene) nor anointed (christ).
The fact you didn't notice this is exactly the point of my post.

*note don't use those missionary response sites in response, try reading the full context yourself and don't allow them to turn you into a liar because it was not about a literal Historical king (which they never name).
And they wouldn't have used that passage to teach about the false fallen prophet (lucifer) if it were. Their response would be admiting they lied and pastors are liars in order to change focus and save face. Like that's better when lucifer and his messengers are called great deceivers?

 

[HaShev]

Can Christians explain why they translate the words anointed to Christ, guardian to Nazarene, and perfect to sinless throughout the NT until they get to Ezekiel 28 about Lucifer when they leave the translation as anointed cherub seen as perfect to avoid detection of Jesus being Lucifer?
-Ezekiel 28:14-15

I am not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. First, where are you seeing Lucifer? Ezekiel is referencing the King of Tyre, who was not a good man. References to Cherub usually describes angels in place to guard and protect what God indicates.

Your reply needs to be specific as I made it clear the english anointed is called Christ in Greek and NT usage and Cherub (guardian) is translated in Hebrew as Nazarei.
Nazarene isn't a person from Nazareth (Nazarite is), it means Guardian (cherub) of the new testament=Nazarene.
Why would your faith translate into languages of choice when convenient to hide damaging terms and fulfillments? You just admited this selective use of words confused you even though it was right in front of you all this time. The use of words were not recognized by you which reveals why they selectively transkate the way they do.
Now about Lucifer in Ezekiel 28.
Your preachers use those passage for Lucifer.
read the full chapter:Son of perdition (i.e. falls to the pit) Jesus fell to hades Acts 2:27,
1Peter 3:19, & Apostles creed.
Seas=slang term they used for Rome
Tyrus (the rock) was controlled by Rome
You call Jesus the King of the Rock but also Israel was in peace with Tyre at that time period Ezekiel context of chapters lead to.
The words Created (images icons are created by man) and walked the garden(serpent=false prophet) are other clues that it's not about a literal king. No king fell by the hands of Rome (seas) for claiming to be a god, Jesus however did.
No king was called Christ Nazarene nor perfect
(sinless) but Jesus was called that.
Remember Jesus was popular in Tyre says NT therefore prince (one who sacrifices for others) of Tyre.
Ezekiel 28 son of perdition (i.e. Lucifer) is Jesus, no other prophet could ever be lucifer
because none were ever deemed gods nor sinless nor guardian(Nazarene) nor anointed (christ).
The fact you didn't notice this is exactly the point of my post.

*note don't use those missionary response sites in response, try reading the full context yourself and don't allow them to turn you into a liar because it's not about a literal king and if it wrre they themselves wouldn't have taught about alucifer through that chapter..

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Each and every version of the bible has been an agenda-driven selective translation.

That's why its pretty worthless.

Cafeteria Christianity chooses the version that supports their own agenda and denigrates/ignores the rest.

 

[Meriweather]

Can Christians explain why they translate the words anointed to Christ, guardian to Nazarene, and perfect to sinless throughout the NT until they get to Ezekiel 28 about Lucifer when they leave the translation as anointed cherub seen as perfect to avoid detection of Jesus being Lucifer?
-Ezekiel 28:14-15

I am not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. First, where are you seeing Lucifer? Ezekiel is referencing the King of Tyre, who was not a good man. References to Cherub usually describes angels in place to guard and protect what God indicates.

Your reply needs to be specific as I made it clear the english anointed is called Christ in Greek and NT usage and Cherub (guardian) is translated in Hebrew as Nazarei.
Nazarene isn't a person from Nazareth (Nazarite is), it means Guardian (cherub) of the new testament=Nazarene.
Why would your faith translate into languages of choice when convenient to hide damaging terms and fulfillments? You just admited this selective use of words confused you even though it was right in front of you all this time. The use of words were not recognized by you which reveals why they selectively transkate the way they do.
Now about Lucifer in Ezekiel 28.
Your preachers use those passage for Lucifer.
read the full chapter:Son of perdition (i.e. falls to the pit) Jesus fell to hades Acts 2:27,
1Peter 3:19, & Apostles creed.
Seas=slang term they used for Rome
Tyrus (the rock) was controlled by Rome
You call Jesus the King of the Rock but also Israel was in peace with Tyre at that time period Ezekiel context of chapters lead to.
The words Created (images icons are created by man) and walked the garden(serpent=false prophet) are other clues that it's not about a literal king. No king fell by the hands of Rome (seas) for claiming to be a god, Jesus however did.
No king was called Christ Nazarene nor perfect
(sinless) but Jesus was called that.
Remember Jesus was popular in Tyre says NT therefore prince (one who sacrifices for others) of Tyre.
Ezekiel 28 son of perdition (i.e. Lucifer) is Jesus, no other prophet could ever be lucifer
because none were ever deemed gods nor sinless nor guardian(Nazarene) nor anointed (christ).
The fact you didn't notice this is exactly the point of my post.

*note don't use those missionary response sites in response, try reading the full context yourself and don't allow them to turn you into a liar.

Sorry, HaShev, but you are too much all over the place for me to help you understand. Because some Christian preachers see Lucifer all over the Old Testament, it doesn't mean that the majority do. We call Jesus the Christ, meaning the anointed. God anoints many for many purposes--Jesus was not the only person anointed/appointed by God to perform a task.

There are Nazarites and there are Nazarenes. I've read wonderful research that rather than coming from a city named Nazareth, Jesus' family was part of a Nazarite community--specifically one that resided in the hills. Scholars pointed out that whereas the current city of Nazareth is located on flat ground, a community of Nazarites did live in an area that had cliffs. (The Gospels record that Jesus visited his home town, upset some people, and they tried throwing him off a cliff.) Whether Jesus was a Nazarene or a Nazarite is not a matter of theology. People are more than welcome to study and arrive at their own conclusion.

"Lucifer" comes from an Old Testament reference of the morning star, and references a king of those times. I think the majority of Christians know this. You seem to be criticizing the use of Lucifer by a few and then blaming those who do understand the proper translation for what the few are doing.

I see you cherry picking passages from everywhere, tossing them together like a salad, arriving at your own conclusions, and proclaiming your conclusions are really Christian beliefs. You are often in error, but have convinced yourself these errors are truth.

Instead of telling others they believe, why not tell others what you believe, and ask them to share their beliefs? That keeps blundering around and getting things wrong to manageable level.

 

[Meriweather]

Each and every version of the bible has been an agenda-driven selective translation.

That's why its pretty worthless.

Cafeteria Christianity chooses the version that supports their own agenda and denigrates/ignores the rest.

I would say "agenda-driven selective translation" overstates the case. It is hard to find the exact translation of many words, and convey the exact context and meanings into the new language. For example, Hebrew is a very literal language, using visual images, whereas Greek and English tend to use abstract concepts. Hebrew uses the word 'aph' to signify displeasure (literally it is the flaring of nostrils) and 'aph' often gets translated as 'wrath'. Wrath is an abstract concept westerners associate with going nuclear.

Imagine the different image you might have of God were the translation, "God's nostrils flared" rather than reading "The wrath of God poured forth."

Another problem we are faced with is that English is mobile, meaning words often change meanings. New translations often come out, not because the older translation was inaccurate, but because the meaning and connotation of words have changed, and a new version is needed so people understand the original connotation.

Many Bibles faithfully strive to preserve the original intent and context, so let's not be too hasty in blaming scholars and translators. The main problem I see today is that many people believe that they can understand the Bible perfectly with no help from scholars, without studying the history and context of the times, without considering the original language, and by dismissing the intent of the original author and the people he was originally addressing.

The idea that each individual can become a Biblical expert by reading a passage and deciding for him/herself what it means has not been a good or realistic concept.

 

[HaShev]

Quote: "Because some
Christian preachers see Lucifer all over the Old
Testament, it doesn't mean that the majority do."

Take that logic and keep an even honest standard:
Because some
Christian preachers see Jesus all over the OT,
it doesn't mean he is in it.
Using your standard you lose all arguments as you admit what my post premise is about by recognizing christ means anointed.
Your quote:" We call Jesus the Christ, meaning the anointed."
but they suddenly do not use the word christ in Ezekiel 28 in the NT, but use it every where else anointed is mentioned.
So are you guys
Avoiding Jesus being Lucifer? Or Placing Jesus falaciously into verses on Anointed Kings (Dan 7) out of context and not messianic in nature?
Either one makes him Lucifer.
This is called checkmate.
Your excuses backed your king in a corner whereby your next move loses your king=check mate your game is over.
This is usually when you guys throw the chess board to the ground in child like rage. : -)

 

[HaShev]

Merriweather quote:
"Lucifer" comes from an Old Testament reference of
the morning star.

- - - -
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (LUCIFER)rises in your hearts.” -- 2 Peter 1:19 This is why the iconographs have Luciferous light radiating from the sacred heart.

“... from my Father. To the one who conquers(DESTROYS) I will also give the morning star(LUCIFER).” -- Revelation 2:28
· Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches.
· I am the bright and Morning Star (lucifer)

 

[Meriweather]

Quote: "Because some
Christian preachers see Lucifer all over the Old
Testament, it doesn't mean that the majority do."

Take that logic and keep an even honest standard:
Because some
Christian preachers see Jesus all over the OT,
it doesn't mean he is in it.
Using your standard you lose all arguments as you admit what my post premise is about by recognizing christ means anointed.
Your quote:" We call Jesus the Christ, meaning the anointed."
but they suddenly do not use the word christ in Ezekiel 28 in the NT, but use it every where else anointed is mentioned.
So are you guys
Avoiding Jesus being Lucifer? Or Placing Jesus falaciously into verses on Anointed Kings (Dan 7) out of context and not messianic in nature?
Either one makes him Lucifer.
This is called checkmate.
Your excuses backed your king in a corner whereby your next move loses your king=check mate your game is over.
This is usually when you guys throw the chess board to the ground in child like rage. : -)

This is a classic example of someone telling someone else what they believe. From start to finish it is filled with incorrect premises. You cannot assume that because you hear one Christian say something that is a doctrine all of Christianity follows. So, you want to make Jesus Lucifer. Shrug. I know a Jew who was able to make him a rooster. Also shrug.

My favorite color is turquoise. My best friend died a couple of years ago. This means you believe goats are really seashells.

Your posts are filled with statements and conclusions of this type. And don't tell me you don't believe goats are really seashells! You must! After all, my best friend died a couple of years ago.

Again: Try allowing others to tell you their beliefs. You are not making a success of telling others what they believe.

 

[Meriweather]

Merriweather quote:
"Lucifer" comes from an Old Testament reference of
the morning star.

- - - -
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (LUCIFER)rises in your hearts.” -- 2 Peter 1:19 This is why the iconographs have Luciferous light radiating from the sacred heart.

“... from my Father. To the one who conquers(DESTROYS) I will also give the morning star(LUCIFER).” -- Revelation 2:28
· Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches.
· I am the bright and Morning Star (lucifer)

Sigh. One instance of morning star in Hebrew being mistranslated as "Lucifer" and you jump to the conclusion that if the Hebrew was mistranslated, a Greek word must have been mistranslated as well?

This is like saying since one student, reading one book, mistakenly translated the Spanish word "rojo" as "banana", the following century, another student reading an entirely different book, MUST have mistranslated the French word "rouge" to mean "banana" as well.

We might be able to have an interesting and productive conversation, but not if you insist in sticking with this kind of logic.

 

[shimon]

A man from a small town who has never been to the big city is in need of dog food for his pet..... He walks into the local pet food store and is amazed at the selection of dog food he can select from... He walks down each aisle and is faced with a delimna as each brand of dog food touts and says it is the best and healthiest for his dog. He scratches his head as he knows absolutely nothing about any of the brands being touted.... He does not know where they were made.... He does not know how they where made he does not even know if they are any good for his beloved pet.... But he does know that he must select one as he only has enough money for that purchase and if he does not select one his dog will starve for lack of food... So gingerly with trepedition and after reading what is written on the labels he selects one and hopes that all will go well with him and the dog he loves.....he pays for the dog food he has selected with the knowledge that was at his disposal and takes the dog food home for his pet....now he could have asked one of the people in the store to teach him which version of dog food he should select but it was always his experience that people usually select what they are familiar with and that they usually like his dog are creatures of habit and are afraid to question where their sustenance is trully coming from and whether those that are sustaining them have their best interests at heart...is it not time to question the selection and search out for the truth before feeding your beloved pet something that may be harmfull instead of doing him good....

 

[HaShev]

Meri, you assume to much.
1) you do not know that I have said on numerous occasions how people within a faith can have varried beliefs as well as within sects and every individual has their own take on how things are.
I have also slamed atheists for failing to ask individuals for their definition and precepts which vary from cultures and individuals. How csn they argue over something they've yet to define? You are doing this yourself.
2) in this format we generalize. If something isn't describing you then it isn't you. Period.

The discussion about Morning star is a problem for you because you are using staged failed arguments.
So you are only as good as the info you are using and that info is being released by people who lack research and study (polite way of saying they are idiots)and liars thus making you a tool and fool for their false info.

Fact: Morning Star was the nemesis of the God of Israel and his arch malkh Michael named in the holy city YeruShalem
(Shalem =Evening Star). *see my sunday sermon series in this forum for Torah backing to this.

Fact: the 2 arch angels were represented symbolism in the archvof the planet venus.
The fallen arch of Venus called the morning star perfectly represented Lucifer's fall. While the rising arch represented Michael as the Evening Star who rises
-Dan 12:1-4 and rem9ves/over turnscthe Faloen morning star which is in the legend of how the city of Shalem becomes the city of Shalom (peace).

Another reason only an idiot calls himself the morning star is because it's the son of Baal (look up the dying god mythology of athtar the fierce -canaanite mythology)
Also the son of Ishtar (easter) which is one in the same godess Isis who was the wife of Baal.
Now you know the number of his name as father and son are one in the same mythology & story just the son masking Baal. " Baal Jesus"=666 in ascll numerology used to secret numbers from names.

So next time you use contribed canned responses consider the source- is it an excuse from the 1/3 deceived? If so you are argiung for the opposing team.
Enough said!