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?

[onewithhim]

What needs to be understood, until the 16th century, the Catholic church had a stranglehold on ownership of Bibles. Only their clergy were allowed to have Bibles, and only in Latin. At that time, the Catholic church ruled all of Europe, parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Russia. If you were caught with a Bible written in English by men like Tindal, or Wycliff, you would be strangled or put to the stake and burned alive. King James was directly responsible for overturning the Catholic dominance. Also, until the Guttenberg Press was invented in the 15th century, the Bible was written by hand. Also, the majority of the common people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire were uneducated and few able to read. The condition of the working class was horrible back then, and those in authority, especially in Rome, their Popes ruled with an iron fist. Tindal's last prayer has been recorded in history. it went something like this, "Lord Jesus, open up the eyes of the king."

It was King James and the King James Bible that opened up to a dumbed-down Christian world, the word of God. For that reason alone, I believe the King James Bible is the finished work of the Holy Spirit. All these other new renderings of the Bible came out around 1950 or later. Easier to read, "Yes" if you're lazy. The problem is corruption enters the picture. Money was the driving force behind these newly revised editions of the Bible. Read about the corruption of Wescott and Hort, and those that followed that put their dirty hands on the world of God. Soon after, America was being settled, Christianity spread like wildfire, the preferred Bible for the next 450 years was/is the King James Bible.

I thought it was King Henry VIII that up-ended the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on the people. Anyway, the King James Bible is difficult to understand and more modern versions are a great help.

Don't take this wrong, but if I can understand the K.J.B., of course with a great deal of effort, anyone can. The question is, "How much effort does a person wish to put into understanding it?"

How can people today understand the King's English?

It's easy, buy a concordance, a few well-recognized commentaries; Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, and Walvoord and Zuck etc.

You say they would if they weren't lazy? How can a person know what a "shambles" is unless he stops and does intense research?

Hmm! How much time is it worth to save your soul?

Well, that definition has already been ascertained by more modern translators. Why not be grateful for the research already done?

If you examine the recent history of modern versions, you will find there have been too many cooks in the kitchen; too much mudslinging; and too many copywriters.

All right. To each his own. You prefer the KJV, I prefer the New American Bible; American Standard Version; Young's Literal Translation; and the NASB.

Are there are no variances to many translations? Why not verify them to the Hebrew or Greek text where they source from.
I prefer to visit the sources sometimes. KJV has its Strong Concordance, Hebrew and Greek lexicons for further guidance also.

I have an Interlinear Bible that shows the collaboration between the original languages and English. It is not a JW translation. It simply goes back to the original languages. I don't need the opinion of the Strong Concordance. I can see for myself what the relation is between the original languages and English.

I mean Strong's Numbers that are an index of every word in the original biblical manuscript texts. Each Strong's Number links the root meaning of the words of the Bible back to the original meanings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. This helps us locate the original words of Hebrew and Greek as only few can read or familiar with pure Hebrew or Greek.

OK, though I think Strong is biased. I'd rather go with unbiased sources, like the Interlinear and a dictionary.

[placebofactor]

What needs to be understood, until the 16th century, the Catholic church had a stranglehold on ownership of Bibles. Only their clergy were allowed to have Bibles, and only in Latin. At that time, the Catholic church ruled all of Europe, parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Russia. If you were caught with a Bible written in English by men like Tindal, or Wycliff, you would be strangled or put to the stake and burned alive. King James was directly responsible for overturning the Catholic dominance. Also, until the Guttenberg Press was invented in the 15th century, the Bible was written by hand. Also, the majority of the common people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire were uneducated and few able to read. The condition of the working class was horrible back then, and those in authority, especially in Rome, their Popes ruled with an iron fist. Tindal's last prayer has been recorded in history. it went something like this, "Lord Jesus, open up the eyes of the king."

It was King James and the King James Bible that opened up to a dumbed-down Christian world, the word of God. For that reason alone, I believe the King James Bible is the finished work of the Holy Spirit. All these other new renderings of the Bible came out around 1950 or later. Easier to read, "Yes" if you're lazy. The problem is corruption enters the picture. Money was the driving force behind these newly revised editions of the Bible. Read about the corruption of Wescott and Hort, and those that followed that put their dirty hands on the world of God. Soon after, America was being settled, Christianity spread like wildfire, the preferred Bible for the next 450 years was/is the King James Bible.

I thought it was King Henry VIII that up-ended the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on the people. Anyway, the King James Bible is difficult to understand and more modern versions are a great help.

Don't take this wrong, but if I can understand the K.J.B., of course with a great deal of effort, anyone can. The question is, "How much effort does a person wish to put into understanding it?"

How can people today understand the King's English?

It's easy, buy a concordance, a few well-recognized commentaries; Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, and Walvoord and Zuck etc.

You say they would if they weren't lazy? How can a person know what a "shambles" is unless he stops and does intense research?

Hmm! How much time is it worth to save your soul?

Well, that definition has already been ascertained by more modern translators. Why not be grateful for the research already done?

If you examine the recent history of modern versions, you will find there have been too many cooks in the kitchen; too much mudslinging; and too many copywriters.

All right. To each his own. You prefer the KJV, I prefer the New American Bible; American Standard Version; Young's Literal Translation; and the NASB.

Are there are no variances to many translations? Why not verify them to the Hebrew or Greek text where they source from.
I prefer to visit the sources sometimes. KJV has its Strong Concordance, Hebrew and Greek lexicons for further guidance also.

I have an Interlinear Bible that shows the collaboration between the original languages and English. It is not a JW translation. It simply goes back to the original languages. I don't need the opinion of the Strong Concordance. I can see for myself what the relation is between the original languages and English.

I mean Strong's Numbers that are an index of every word in the original biblical manuscript texts. Each Strong's Number links the root meaning of the words of the Bible back to the original meanings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. This helps us locate the original words of Hebrew and Greek as only few can read or familiar with pure Hebrew or Greek.

OK, though I think Strong is biased. I'd rather go with unbiased sources, like the Interlinear and a dictionary.

If you use Strong's numbering system, you can then compare that to two or more other Lexicons. You would then have three or more sources, that's what I do. I use Strong's, Gesenus, Thayer's, and 1836, Greek to English Lexicon, and an 1837 Hebrew to English Dictionary. Adam Clark's commentary is good at defining difficult words in his commentary.

[onewithhim]

What needs to be understood, until the 16th century, the Catholic church had a stranglehold on ownership of Bibles. Only their clergy were allowed to have Bibles, and only in Latin. At that time, the Catholic church ruled all of Europe, parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Russia. If you were caught with a Bible written in English by men like Tindal, or Wycliff, you would be strangled or put to the stake and burned alive. King James was directly responsible for overturning the Catholic dominance. Also, until the Guttenberg Press was invented in the 15th century, the Bible was written by hand. Also, the majority of the common people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire were uneducated and few able to read. The condition of the working class was horrible back then, and those in authority, especially in Rome, their Popes ruled with an iron fist. Tindal's last prayer has been recorded in history. it went something like this, "Lord Jesus, open up the eyes of the king."

It was King James and the King James Bible that opened up to a dumbed-down Christian world, the word of God. For that reason alone, I believe the King James Bible is the finished work of the Holy Spirit. All these other new renderings of the Bible came out around 1950 or later. Easier to read, "Yes" if you're lazy. The problem is corruption enters the picture. Money was the driving force behind these newly revised editions of the Bible. Read about the corruption of Wescott and Hort, and those that followed that put their dirty hands on the world of God. Soon after, America was being settled, Christianity spread like wildfire, the preferred Bible for the next 450 years was/is the King James Bible.

I thought it was King Henry VIII that up-ended the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on the people. Anyway, the King James Bible is difficult to understand and more modern versions are a great help.

Don't take this wrong, but if I can understand the K.J.B., of course with a great deal of effort, anyone can. The question is, "How much effort does a person wish to put into understanding it?"

How can people today understand the King's English?

It's easy, buy a concordance, a few well-recognized commentaries; Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, and Walvoord and Zuck etc.

You say they would if they weren't lazy? How can a person know what a "shambles" is unless he stops and does intense research?

Hmm! How much time is it worth to save your soul?

Well, that definition has already been ascertained by more modern translators. Why not be grateful for the research already done?

If you examine the recent history of modern versions, you will find there have been too many cooks in the kitchen; too much mudslinging; and too many copywriters.

All right. To each his own. You prefer the KJV, I prefer the New American Bible; American Standard Version; Young's Literal Translation; and the NASB.

Are there are no variances to many translations? Why not verify them to the Hebrew or Greek text where they source from.
I prefer to visit the sources sometimes. KJV has its Strong Concordance, Hebrew and Greek lexicons for further guidance also.

I have an Interlinear Bible that shows the collaboration between the original languages and English. It is not a JW translation. It simply goes back to the original languages. I don't need the opinion of the Strong Concordance. I can see for myself what the relation is between the original languages and English.

I mean Strong's Numbers that are an index of every word in the original biblical manuscript texts. Each Strong's Number links the root meaning of the words of the Bible back to the original meanings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. This helps us locate the original words of Hebrew and Greek as only few can read or familiar with pure Hebrew or Greek.

OK, though I think Strong is biased. I'd rather go with unbiased sources, like the Interlinear and a dictionary.

If you use Strong's numbering system, you can then compare that to two or more other Lexicons. You would then have three or more sources, that's what I do. I use Strong's, Gesenus, Thayer's, and 1836, Greek to English Lexicon, and an 1837 Hebrew to English Dictionary. Adam Clark's commentary is good at defining difficult words in his commentary.

I don't care about Strong's number system. He is just a man and rates words according to his own opinions and bias. I can see the difference between Hebrew, Greek and English in my Interlinear Bible, and I respect another man's opinions that are outlined in the book "Truth in Translation." It's as good as your Strong's and Gesenus' and Thayer's opinions.

[placebofactor]

What needs to be understood, until the 16th century, the Catholic church had a stranglehold on ownership of Bibles. Only their clergy were allowed to have Bibles, and only in Latin. At that time, the Catholic church ruled all of Europe, parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Russia. If you were caught with a Bible written in English by men like Tindal, or Wycliff, you would be strangled or put to the stake and burned alive. King James was directly responsible for overturning the Catholic dominance. Also, until the Guttenberg Press was invented in the 15th century, the Bible was written by hand. Also, the majority of the common people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire were uneducated and few able to read. The condition of the working class was horrible back then, and those in authority, especially in Rome, their Popes ruled with an iron fist. Tindal's last prayer has been recorded in history. it went something like this, "Lord Jesus, open up the eyes of the king."

It was King James and the King James Bible that opened up to a dumbed-down Christian world, the word of God. For that reason alone, I believe the King James Bible is the finished work of the Holy Spirit. All these other new renderings of the Bible came out around 1950 or later. Easier to read, "Yes" if you're lazy. The problem is corruption enters the picture. Money was the driving force behind these newly revised editions of the Bible. Read about the corruption of Wescott and Hort, and those that followed that put their dirty hands on the world of God. Soon after, America was being settled, Christianity spread like wildfire, the preferred Bible for the next 450 years was/is the King James Bible.

I thought it was King Henry VIII that up-ended the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on the people. Anyway, the King James Bible is difficult to understand and more modern versions are a great help.

Don't take this wrong, but if I can understand the K.J.B., of course with a great deal of effort, anyone can. The question is, "How much effort does a person wish to put into understanding it?"

How can people today understand the King's English?

It's easy, buy a concordance, a few well-recognized commentaries; Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, and Walvoord and Zuck etc.

You say they would if they weren't lazy? How can a person know what a "shambles" is unless he stops and does intense research?

Hmm! How much time is it worth to save your soul?

Well, that definition has already been ascertained by more modern translators. Why not be grateful for the research already done?

If you examine the recent history of modern versions, you will find there have been too many cooks in the kitchen; too much mudslinging; and too many copywriters.

All right. To each his own. You prefer the KJV, I prefer the New American Bible; American Standard Version; Young's Literal Translation; and the NASB.

Are there are no variances to many translations? Why not verify them to the Hebrew or Greek text where they source from.
I prefer to visit the sources sometimes. KJV has its Strong Concordance, Hebrew and Greek lexicons for further guidance also.

I have an Interlinear Bible that shows the collaboration between the original languages and English. It is not a JW translation. It simply goes back to the original languages. I don't need the opinion of the Strong Concordance. I can see for myself what the relation is between the original languages and English.

I mean Strong's Numbers that are an index of every word in the original biblical manuscript texts. Each Strong's Number links the root meaning of the words of the Bible back to the original meanings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. This helps us locate the original words of Hebrew and Greek as only few can read or familiar with pure Hebrew or Greek.

OK, though I think Strong is biased. I'd rather go with unbiased sources, like the Interlinear and a dictionary.

If you use Strong's numbering system, you can then compare that to two or more other Lexicons. You would then have three or more sources, that's what I do. I use Strong's, Gesenus, Thayer's, and 1836, Greek to English Lexicon, and an 1837 Hebrew to English Dictionary. Adam Clark's commentary is good at defining difficult words in his commentary.

I don't care about Strong's number system. He is just a man and rates words according to his own opinions and bias. I can see the difference between Hebrew, Greek and English in my Interlinear Bible, and I respect another man's opinions that are outlined in the book "Truth in Translation." It's as good as your Strong's and Gesenus' and Thayer's opinions.

Maybe you don't care, but millions and millions of us do. It saves a great deal of time examining words. Your "Truth in Translation" what Bible is it set up for, the N.W.T.?

[onewithhim]

I thought it was King Henry VIII that up-ended the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on the people. Anyway, the King James Bible is difficult to understand and more modern versions are a great help.

Don't take this wrong, but if I can understand the K.J.B., of course with a great deal of effort, anyone can. The question is, "How much effort does a person wish to put into understanding it?"

How can people today understand the King's English?

It's easy, buy a concordance, a few well-recognized commentaries; Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, and Walvoord and Zuck etc.

You say they would if they weren't lazy? How can a person know what a "shambles" is unless he stops and does intense research?

Hmm! How much time is it worth to save your soul?

Well, that definition has already been ascertained by more modern translators. Why not be grateful for the research already done?

If you examine the recent history of modern versions, you will find there have been too many cooks in the kitchen; too much mudslinging; and too many copywriters.

All right. To each his own. You prefer the KJV, I prefer the New American Bible; American Standard Version; Young's Literal Translation; and the NASB.

Are there are no variances to many translations? Why not verify them to the Hebrew or Greek text where they source from.
I prefer to visit the sources sometimes. KJV has its Strong Concordance, Hebrew and Greek lexicons for further guidance also.

I have an Interlinear Bible that shows the collaboration between the original languages and English. It is not a JW translation. It simply goes back to the original languages. I don't need the opinion of the Strong Concordance. I can see for myself what the relation is between the original languages and English.

I mean Strong's Numbers that are an index of every word in the original biblical manuscript texts. Each Strong's Number links the root meaning of the words of the Bible back to the original meanings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were translated. This helps us locate the original words of Hebrew and Greek as only few can read or familiar with pure Hebrew or Greek.

OK, though I think Strong is biased. I'd rather go with unbiased sources, like the Interlinear and a dictionary.

If you use Strong's numbering system, you can then compare that to two or more other Lexicons. You would then have three or more sources, that's what I do. I use Strong's, Gesenus, Thayer's, and 1836, Greek to English Lexicon, and an 1837 Hebrew to English Dictionary. Adam Clark's commentary is good at defining difficult words in his commentary.

I don't care about Strong's number system. He is just a man and rates words according to his own opinions and bias. I can see the difference between Hebrew, Greek and English in my Interlinear Bible, and I respect another man's opinions that are outlined in the book "Truth in Translation." It's as good as your Strong's and Gesenus' and Thayer's opinions.

Maybe you don't care, but millions and millions of us do. It saves a great deal of time examining words. Your "Truth in Translation" what Bible is it set up for, the N.W.T.?

Still biased.

"Truth in Translation" Is not "set up for" the NWT. He compares 9 or so versions and explains why one version is more accurate that others. He came to the conclusion that the NWT is the best translation, and the New American Bible is next. He has no bias. He is someone who wanted to get to the bottom of which version is the most accurate. He has no religious affiliation. He likes the NWT, but he takes exception to that version including Jehovah's name in the New Testament.

[Difflugia]

Still biased.

He has no bias.

On what basis are you making these claims?

Strong's numbering system just assigns unique numbers to root words to make lookup and comparison easier for people that aren't comfortable with Hebrew and Greek alphabetical orders. What kind of bias do you see there?

BeDuhn's book, on the other hand, is tailor-made for Witness apologetics: the verses on which he bases his comparison have particularly troublesome translations in the NWT and his justifications for them mirror Witness apologetic arguments. He condemns theologically-based translation choices in other translations, but makes excuses for them in the NWT. It beggars belief that his verse selections and conclusions are the result of mere happenstance rather than a specific attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the NWT. Furthermore, he makes several basic mistakes that no reader of Greek should make, making his analyses dubious in the first place.

[placebofactor]

Still biased.

He has no bias.

On what basis are you making these claims?

Strong's numbering system just assigns unique numbers to root words to make lookup and comparison easier for people that aren't comfortable with Hebrew and Greek alphabetical orders. What kind of bias do you see there?

BeDuhn's book, on the other hand, is tailor-made for Witness apologetics: the verses on which he bases his comparison have particularly troublesome translations in the NWT and his justifications for them mirror Witness apologetic arguments. He condemns theologically-based translation choices in other translations, but makes excuses for them in the NWT. It beggars belief that his verse selections and conclusions are the result of mere happenstance rather than a specific attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the NWT. Furthermore, he makes several basic mistakes that no reader of Greek should make, making his analyses dubious in the first place.

I believe there is one issue being overlooked. The original N.T. manuscripts were written in Greek. But the Language of the Roman Empire and Catholic church and for the few that could read and write was Latin. Hebrew for most Jews, and Greek for the common people of Israel. But Latin was the language of the Empire. The original Greek letters were translated into Latin. The first consolidated Bible was in Latin. I have little doubt that the Catholic church still possesses some of these first-century letters in its vast archives, hidden from the public for 1900 years. And when men like Wycliff, Matthews, Crammer's Bible, and Jugge, these honorable men had to translate Latin versions to English. They also had to translate into English, manuscripts written in other languages like Syrian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, etc.