Concerning Jesus return

[placebofactor]

The following question is difficult for me to ask because of a hundred little details connected to it.  
I believe the time of Jesus' return has been hidden in the book of Daniel and Hosea for several thousand years and is only now to be revealed.

I believe Jesus Christ is the God of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” To support that I use the following.
Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.”

Hebrews 1:10 states that he laid the foundation of the earth and heavens.

Colossians 1:16, "By him were all things created." With that said, we know without doubt that Jesus Christ is God.

Philippians 2:7-8, tells us He had taken on “the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself --.” With Hebrews 2:9, he “was made a little lower than the angels--.”
But after his resurrection, he was given the glory he had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5. God is said to be all-knowing, yet in Mark 14:32, Jesus said concerning his return, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

Because God is all-knowing, it appears his words limit his understanding. So, my question is, did this change after his resurrection? Did he again receive the glory he once had, ‘all-knowing?’ John 17:5. After he was taken into heaven, the Father gave him the Holy Spirit. Jesus then sent him to us. Nothing in scripture tells us the Holy Spirit did not have this information. If he does, are any new revelations ready to be made known? Or has the whole story been told?

[Difflugia]

BeDuhn gives excellent reasons why many scholars in antiquity and in these days have been wrong about their translations. He really gets down to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew texts. Many others just follow the KJV, which was not translated from the original Greek or Hebrew.

If not the original Greek or Hebrew, what do you think the KJV was translated from?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #40]

If I remember correctly, the King James committee translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew or Greek. That lead to unfortunate mistakes in the work of translation.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #40]

If I remember correctly, the King James committee translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew or Greek.

"Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues"

The Douay-Rheims was translated from the Vulgate and had some influence on the KJV, but the translators of the KJV started with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

[placebofactor]

If you have been debating this subject, the following is the history behind the translation of the K.J.B. During the whole process of translation, there was always someone recording the events as they took place. The following is an overview of what did take place and a few of the men involved. Evidence is crucial in any debate. So here it is, and history stands as its witness. These are the facts, not a pile of bull coming out of the back door of some cult.
What does it mean to translate? To interpret: To render what is written from one language into another; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.
William Tyndale was executed by strangulation and then burned at the stake by Catholic henchmen at Vilvoorde in 1536 because he dared publish a Bible in English.

In 1604, King James commanded a new version of the Bible to be written. Fifty-four of the most knowledgeable and skillful men in translating languages were brought together for this undertaking. Before the task began, seven of the men either declined the work or died, leaving the number who remained at 47.

These men were pre-eminently distinguished for their faith in God and His written word. They were exceptionally skilled in reading and translating the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. The work was divided into six classes.

1. Ten men met at Westminster University to translate from the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Old Testament, to the end of the second Book of Kings.

2. Eight men were assembled at Cambridge University and were to finish the rest of the Historical books and the Hagiographa (this is the third part of the Jewish Scriptures.)

3. Seven men went to Oxford University and were to undertake the four greater prophets, with the Book of Lamentations and the twelve minor prophets.

4. Another group gathered at Oxford to do the four Gospels, Acts, and the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation).

5. Paul’s and the remaining canonical epistles were allotted to seven men at Westminster.

6. The last group went to Cambridge University to translate the Apocryphal books, including the prayers of Manasseh.

Fifteen regulations, or rules were established by the King himself as a guide, or standard, for the work before it started, and these were to be strictly adhered to. A reporter named Selden followed and wrote of the events as they took place.

According to the regulations, each book passed the scrutiny of all translators successively. Each individual translated every book that had been allotted to their division. Secondly, the reading to be adopted was agreed upon by his section. At these meetings, each translator was to read their translation to the entire company.

The book, when finished, was sent to a company of twelve men, two from each company. At these meetings, Selden wrote,

“One would read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the man’s own language, be it French, Spanish, Italian, etc. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on.” Marginal notes are used to explain the Hebrew and Greek words and to give attention to parallel passages. Words not found in the original but necessary to complete the sense of verse were put in italics as (these words are in italics).

The translators were empowered to call to their assistance any scholar whose studies enabled them to be of service if or when a crisis arose. The translation started in 1607 and completed three years later.

After three years, the whole Bible, thus translated and revised, was sent to London. There, a committee of six, two from each University, was sent. They reviewed and polished the whole work. Dr. Smith, the Bishop of Gloucester, then examined them. He and Dr. Belson, Bishop of Winchester, wrote the Preface. This translation of the Bible was first published in folio in 1611. A folio is a book of the largest size, formed by once doubling a sheet of paper.

When one reads the rules established, one can understand the excellent care taken to ensure the integrity of the word of God is constantly being held in the highest regard.

In the early sixteen hundred’s, men were not hampered by T.V. Radio, cell phones, sporting events, other modern-day distractions, or entertainment. Their time was consumed with the study. Let’s take a look at two of these men.

1. Lancelot Andrews. This man spoke 15 modern languages fluently, plus Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, and spent more than five hours a day in prayer.

2. John Boys. This man spent 16 hours per day studying Greek.

3. The other 45 men had similar skills, making them all fully qualified for the task. These men were not paid, nor did they receive any rewards.

The English of the K.J.B. was not spoken in the 17th century. It is not a type of English that has ever been spoken anywhere or at any time in history. King James Bible English owes its merit to the faithful translation of the original works (manuscripts.) Its’ style captured the style of the original Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #40]

If I remember correctly, the King James committee translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew or Greek.

"Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues"

The Douay-Rheims was translated from the Vulgate and had some influence on the KJV, but the translators of the KJV started with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

[Difflugia]

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

Does it? Other than your vague implications, what translation issues of the KJV owe their origins to the Douay-Rheims and its Vulgate source?

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #40]

If I remember correctly, the King James committee translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew or Greek.

"Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues"

The Douay-Rheims was translated from the Vulgate and had some influence on the KJV, but the translators of the KJV started with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

I believe you are wrong with that, see below with link.

The DRB is based on the Latin text. In other words, it is a translation of a translation. The KJV is based on Greek texts in the N.T, (none of which were earlier to the tenth century), and the Masoretic text in the O.T.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... 26d0f6c34f

[onewithhim]

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

Does it? Other than your vague implications, what translation issues of the KJV owe their origins to the Douay-Rheims and its Vulgate source?

You tell me. It was you who said that the Douay-Rheims has had "some influence" on the KJV. What influence are you referring to?

[Difflugia]

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

Does it? Other than your vague implications, what translation issues of the KJV owe their origins to the Douay-Rheims and its Vulgate source?

You tell me. It was you who said that the Douay-Rheims has had "some influence" on the KJV. What influence are you referring to?

I did and that's true, but this is your argument. You've cast aspersions on the King James by claiming that it was translated from Latin instead of Hebrew and Greek. When you were wrong about that, you tried to imply that there's a problem with its literary dependence on the Douay-Rheims. I asked you to clarify, but it's apparently now up to me to explain what you said?

What's the substance of your argument? Is there any?

[onewithhim]

Oh, so the Douay-Rheims "had some influence" on the KJV. That says a lot.

Does it? Other than your vague implications, what translation issues of the KJV owe their origins to the Douay-Rheims and its Vulgate source?

You tell me. It was you who said that the Douay-Rheims has had "some influence" on the KJV. What influence are you referring to?

I did and that's true, but this is your argument. You've cast aspersions on the King James by claiming that it was translated from Latin instead of Hebrew and Greek. When you were wrong about that, you tried to imply that there's a problem with its literary dependence on the Douay-Rheims. I asked you to clarify, but it's apparently now up to me to explain what you said?

What's the substance of your argument? Is there any?

No, it's up to you to explain what you posted. Quote: the Douay-Rheims had some influence on the KJV.