So if you assume it's obvious that translation from one language to another could introduce error, then it would follow that all versions could contain some error, and also some bias, due to who translated it.

I believe the above translation came from "Sons of God" and the translators knew who the "Sons of God" were. We know the "Sons of God" are someone else. Likewise, when we read things in our English Bibles, could we be biased and interpret words to mean what we want them to mean similar to how the translators above translated "Sons of God" to mean what they wanted them to mean?

Something interesting I ran across:

The following is an excerpt from an A. T. Jones sermon in 1889 entitled "Our God is a Consuming Fire."

Sorry about the formatting. The underlined portion is my emphasis.


When I meet him today “in a flaming fire, “when I welcome
him today “a consuming fire” in me, shall I be afraid to meet him
in flaming fire in that day— No; I shall be accustomed to it; and
knowing what a blessed thing it is to become familiar with
meeting him as “a consuming fire,” knowing what a blessing
that has brought to me today, I shall be delighted to meet him on that
other day, when he shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire.
“Our God is a consuming fire.” Bless the Lord! “Who may abide
the day of his coming? Who shall stand when he appeareth? for he
is like a refiner’s FIRE.” Good. Then when I meet him now, in
the consuming fire that he is, I meet him in a fire that is
refining, that purifies. “And he shall sit as a refiner
and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and
purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord
an offering in righteousness.” That is separation from sin; that
is purification from sin. And that sets us where we offer an
offering unto the Lord in righteousness: we become the servants
of righteousness unto holiness, that we may meet the Lord. So,
then, bless the Lord that he is a consuming fire,— that he is as a refiner’s fire.

Look again at that expression in Revelation: “His eyes were as a flame of fire.” In that day his eyes will rest upon each one of us, and he will look clear through us. When his eyes are as a flame of fire, and those eyes in that great day rest upon every one of us, and look clear through us, what will that look do for every one who is wrapped up, body and soul, in sin?— It will consume the sin and the sinner with it; because he would not be separated from the sin. And today, just now, those eyes are the same that they will be in that day. Today his eyes are as a flame of fire; and “all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Very good, then. As all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do, whether we will have to do with him or not, why not accept the fact, choose to have it so, and on our part open up everything to the eyes of him with whom we have to do? And having opened up the life thus to him, to the flaming fire of the glory of his shining eyes, what will that do?— Those eyes of living flame will look clear through us, and will consume away all the sin, and all the dross; and will refine us so that he shall see in us the image of himself.

It is written that we are to serve the Lord “as of sincerity.”
Sincere is genuine; it is true; it is as strained honey. Originally, it is honey strained, and strained again, over and over, until, holding up the honey to the light, it is found to be sine-cera,— “without wax,” no trace of cera to be seen floating in it. That is what he says you and I are to be as certainly as we are Christians. God cleanses us in the blood of Christ, and holds us up in the light of the Lord, and the world can see only the light. And so, “ye are the light of the world.” Here, again, is the word of the Lord: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me.” Ps. 139:23, 24. That is the word given to us for today and for all time. Another word Our God is a Consuming Fire goes right along with it: “0 Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising...and art
acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.” Another
translation has it: “Thou has compassed me all around; and
holdest thine hand over me.” Verses 1-5. That is a fact. He has
compassed us all around, and his hand is over us. Whether we
accept it or not, is another matter; but that is the fact with every man in all this wide world. That is how it is that all things an naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Then when it is a fact that he has searched us, and known
us, and does search out and know us all the time, why not accept
it as a fact, and have the benefit of it? Why not present to him
the word, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and
know my thoughts”? What for?— “And see if there be any wicked
way in me.” 0, that sets me before his face; for his glorious eyes of light to look upon me, and to shine through me, as the fire, searching out if there be any wicked way in me! And having
searched it out, and being a consuming fire, he consumes it all
away, and leads me in the way everlasting.

{DA 107.4}
“To sin, wherever found, “our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin [safely]. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them [against His desire]. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Gen. 32: 30.

“Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed “with the Spirit of His mouth,” and destroyed “with the brightness of His coming.” 2 Thess. 2:8.

“The light of the glory of God, WHICH IMPARTS LIFE TO THE RIGHTEOUS, will slay the wicked”.

I offer my help "yet again" for any word or sentence in there that you find confusing.

Please point to the problem - and I will be happy to explain it.




The "time" you need to construct the puzzle that is just not working for you (as already stated above) is the time for "Swords" to go out of use. The problem with your trying to achieve that goal is that Ellen White already argued for a SOON coming of Christ to occur IN THE LIFE TIME of the people she was talking to. In fact she argues in the 1880's that it should have been BEFORE then!

Hint: No ABL flying around in the 1870's (as it turns out).

in Christ,

Bob

On the contrary. I pointed to the contrast between a strict Translation like NASB (or YLT take your pick) and a mere "paraphrase" like the Living Bible. So that you can get the idea of truck sized whole they try to open up with those paraphrases.




Indeed - TRANSLATION requires that the term "sons of God" be printed in english and then let the READERS "imagine" what that might mean. PARAPHRASING means that you "do the imagining for them according to your own wishes and bias".

in Christ,

Bob

Why can't you speak in plain English? I asked you this question back on page 65, and still, 6 pages later, you haven't given a straight answer. You've ascribed all sorts of motive to me, when all I did was ask a simple question, and you *still* haven't answered.

Please, Bob, answer in language a 6 year old can understand. Were the swords in the quote literal? To make it easier for you to answer, please assume the quote is not speaking of some time way in the future, but within a few years of the quote. As early as the late 1850's Ellen White wrote that "Christ could have come 'ere this," so it's quite possible that this could have been the case (that what was prophesied by the quote was shortly to take place). So, given this assumption, were the swords literal?

Please start out your answer with the word "yes" or the word "no," and then you continue your explanation as you wish, but I still, after many of your attempts to answer this question, have no idea whether your answer is "yes" or "no."

Yes, teresa, the same quotes I've cited at least dozens of times. I found A. T. Jones interpretation very interesting. It seems very much in line with what I've been saying. I haven't found too much of Jones and Waggoner's writings on this particular subject, but what little I've found goes right in line with the thoughts we've been sharing. For example, Waggoner is very clear on the concept that death is the consequence of sin (which Ellen White could not have been clearer regarding than saying, "the inevitable result of sin is death").

i could have sworn they were using guns in the civil war, not swords.

surely, i couldnt have misunderstood all these years?!

It would be of interest of how you determine whether something is "strict" or something is "paraphrased".


But you do realize that "sons of God" is "imagined" as to what the original text means in English. And doesn't the KJV insert and otherwise provide "help" for the reader in understanding what the text means (and that's not meaning it's an incorrect meaning)?

Either way, if the paraphrasers are imagining what a text should be saying, could it be possible, I mean is there the possibility that when different people read a text, they do their own imagining? That is, could "accepting the text as it reads" result in different meanings to each who are doing the reading?