Checking a bible fact

DIFFERENCES between the Isaiah of the MT and the Great Isaiah Scroll :

Part1.


Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.

Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.

Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah … as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.

Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 14:4
The NJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV all follow 1QIsaa in the text. It is the only Qumran reading followed by all eight of the translations studied by Clark (1984). The NJV provides the explanation of this remarkable unanimity: “madhebah (the MT) is of unknown meaning.” It is likely that one letter, d, in the MT is incorrect, and the text should read r, a letter that is quite similar in shape. In fact, this is the reading of 1QIsaa: marhebah, and is translated “insolence” (NRSV), “fury” (NIV), or in similar terms. In many cases the MT presents difficulties for the translator because of certain obscurities in Hebrew grammar or lexicography. But in some cases, as here, the difficulty is created by textual corruption, and the Qumran evidence provides valuable assistance.

Isaiah 14:30
The RSV and NRSV follow 1QIsaa in translating, “I will slay,” instead of “he/it will slay.” The Isaiah scroll seems to better fit the context in which this passage is preceded by another first person singular verb. Among the ancient versions, only the Latin agrees with 1QIsaa. Burrows finds the Qumran reading quite convincing (1955:307), and the NEB/REB concur. However, HOTTP prefers the MT, explaining the shift to third person as a reference back to “the venomous serpent” of 14:29.

Isaiah 15:9
In Isaiah’s oracle against Moab, the well-known Moabite city of Dibon is mentioned in 15:2. In 15:9 Dimon is mentioned twice in the MT. 1QIsab agrees with the MT, but is only extant for the first occurrence. The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading, “Dibon,” and the NIV cites this Qumran evidence in a note. Should the translator follow 1QIsaa or 1QIsab? Dimon may be understood as an alternate name for Dibon, using this name as a literary device to sound like the Hebrew word dam (blood) in the same verse. This explanation is plausible, since name puns are used elsewhere in the OT. It is also possible that this is another city in Moab, although it is otherwise unknown. The RSV opted for the 1QIsaa harmonization with 15:2. Burrows (1955:307–308) implies that this is one of the thirteen 1QIsaa readings adopted by the RSV committee that he would reject upon later reflection. However, the NRSV retains Dibon. The NEB translates “Dimon,” while the REB renders “Dibon,” but fails to offer any textual note, in contradiction to their general policy of citing Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 19:18
In a note, NIV cites Q (= Qumran), along with some MSS of the MT in support of the reading “City of the Sun.” Other versions, including RSV and NRSV, read “City of the Sun” in the text without adding a textual note. This follows the general practice of many translations that do not cite textual variants if there is any manuscript support in the Masoretic tradition.


Iasion

DIFFERENCES between the MT Isaiah and the Great Scroll of Isaiah.

Part 2.


Isaiah 21:8
The NJV offers an English rendering of the difficult MT, “And [like] a lion he called out.” The bracketed “like,” which is not part of the MT, makes “lion” a simile and helps it to fit the context. Otherwise, “lion” hardly seems appropriate here. Earlier translations resorted to conjectural emendation here, but now 1QIsaa offers a more intelligible reading, hr’h (the lookout/watcher/sentry) for the MT ’ryh (lion). The NIV, GNB, RSV, and NRSV all follow the Qumran reading in the text. HOTTP suggests that translators may follow 1QIsaa, although it believes that this is “certainly not the original text.”

Isaiah 23:2–3
1QIsaa differs from the last word of verse 2 in two letters, adding kaph and reading yodh instead of waw, “your messengers,” instead of “they filled you.” 1QIsab appears to offer the same reading, although 4QIsaa reads ml’k, probably in agreement with the MT. The NAB, RSV, and NRSV follow Qumran, connecting “messengers” with the “merchants” of the previous line. The NJV and NIV translate the MT, and NIV gives the Qumran reading in a note. It is reasonable to assume that 1QIsaa preserves the better reading here.

Isaiah 29:5
The RSV translates the first line of the verse, “But the multitude of your foes,” adding a footnote to explain that “foes” is based on a conjecture for the MT zryk (your strangers). The NRSV has made no change here, but the NAB follows 1QIsaa zdyk “your arrogance,” and the NJV cites the same Qumran evidence in a footnote. Apparently, the NRSV did not find the Qumran evidence compelling and retained the conjecture to clarify the more difficult reading of the MT. The GNB translates it “foreigners,” a rendering that is appropriate to the context.

Isaiah 33:8
The RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NIV follow 1QIsaa in reading ’dym “witnesses” instead of the MT ’rym “cities.” “Witnesses” seems appropriate to the meaning of the passage, and the interchange of resh for daleth is understandable in light of the similarity of the letter shapes. The NJV also calls attention to this reading in a footnote.

Isaiah 34:5
The NJV cites the 1QIsaa variant, “be seen,” in a note. The NEB and REB place the Qumran reading, tr’h, in the text. Other modern translations follow the MT, “be drunk,” although the GNB, “The Lord has prepared his sword in heaven” may be based on a conjecture that adds mem to the beginning of the word.

Isaiah 37:25
Although the NIV generally follows the MT more often than other modern translations, in this case the NIV alone puts the reading of 1QIsaa, zrym (foreign), in its translation, “I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.” While this is a plausible reading, it may be a case of assimilation to a parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:24. 1QIsaa contains a number of other examples of assimilation to parallel passages in Kings.

Isaiah 37:27
The RSV and NRSV translators were influenced in their translation here by the parallel passage of 2 Kings 19:26, preferring “blighted” for the MT “field.” The NJV and NIV cite 1QIsaa’s reading, hnshdp, and translate “blasted/scorched,” which appears to be the preferred reading.

Isaiah 45:2
The second line in the MT reads, “I will level the swellings/rough places.” The Hebrew word rendered “swellings” occurs only here in the OT. 1QIsaa reads hrrym “mountains,” which is followed by the NIV, NAB, and RSV/NRSV.

Isaiah 45:8
The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading wyprch for the MT wyprw, a difference of only one letter, cheth for waw, which yields the translation, “that salvation may sprout forth [RSV]/spring up [NRSV],” instead of, “that they may bring forth salvation.” The NAB follows the same Qumran reading. The NEB and GNB, in dynamic equivalent renderings, demonstrate that both the MT and Qumran express a common idea. The NEB translates, “that it may bear the fruit of salvation,” and the GNB has, “[it] will blossom with freedom and justice.” Neither translation has a textual note here. HOTTP prefers the Qumran reading, but as can be seen, there may be little difference in the translation of the MT or Qumran.

Isaiah 49:12
The MT says that the people of “Sinim” will come to Zion, but this place name is otherwise unknown. 1QIsaa gives the name as “Syene” which is located in Egypt and is known today as Aswan. This was the location of a Jewish settlement known as Elephantine. The NAB, NIV, and RSV/NRSV all follow the Qumran reading here. The NEB also translates “Syene,” identifying this as a scroll reading. The REB retains “Syene,” but has dropped the footnote. This is either an oversight or an exegetical decision on the part of the translators to identify the MT “Sinim” as “Syene/Aswan,” without resorting to a textual variant. The NJV cites the variant in a footnote.


Iasion

DIFFEREMCES between the MT Isaiah and the Great Scroll of Isaiah.

Part 3.


Isaiah 49:24
The phrase “captives of the just” in the second half of 49:24 is somewhat awkward in this context. The NIV, RSV/NRSV, NEB/REB, and NAB all follow the 1QIsaa reading, ’ryts (tyrant/ruthless), citing the manuscript evidence from Qumran. GNB also translates “tyrant” without a textual note, since GNB does not cite textual variants that have the support of at least one Hebrew manuscript. HOTTP recommends that translations follow the Qumran reading.

Isaiah 51:19
This verse ends in the MT with the question, “How can I comfort you?” In 1QIsaa the word for “comfort” begins with the letter yod instead of aleph (third person instead of first). The NAB, NIV, RSV/NRSV, and NEB/REB all follow the Qumran reading, although HOTTP believes the MT should be followed in translation and considers the 1QIsaa reading an assimilation to the third person verb used earlier in the verse. There is no compelling reason to doubt that in the prophetic style, God would be speaking in the second half of the verse. The acceptance by most modern translations of this Qumran variant illustrates how an evaluation of manuscript evidence can be combined with a decision regarding literary appropriateness. This has been the traditional approach of translators when dealing with textual problems. A newer trend, as exemplified by HOTTP, tends to evaluate variants such as found in 1QIsaa here, as just as likely to be the result of an ancient scribe adjusting the text in response to some perceived difficulty. Accordingly, modern translators would be advised to be a bit more cautious in accepting textual variants of this type.

Isaiah 53:11
Many recent translations, including the NIV, NAB, NEB/REB, and NRSV, accept the addition of the word ’wr “light,” in both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Not only is the weight of the manuscript convincing to these translators, but the balance of the parallelism is improved as well. HOTTP agrees that translators should follow the Qumran reading here. Morrow (1973:143), however, disagrees, calling attention to the fact that “light” plays a significant role in the theology of the Qumran community. The assumption that the Qumran scribes would have added “light” to the text presupposes that both copies were made at Qumran, which is not necessarily the case.

Isaiah 60:19
The NJV and RSV/NRSV follow the addition of blylh “in the night” in 1QIsaa. As in several other cases such as 53:11, this Qumran addition gives the parallelism of the verse better balance. However, one must be cautious about accepting readings that could have been motivated by the scribe’s sensitivity to Hebrew poetic style. This is why HOTTP does not advise translators to follow 1QIsaa here, even though many modern translations do.


Iasion

Greetings lightseeker,

a: The historical reliablilty of the new testament, if not the entire bible.

Some christians believe this.
No historian agrees.
The bible has been shown wrong in so many places :
www.infidels.org...

b: The reliabilty of the evidence for the resurrection account in the gospels.

Some christians believe this.
No historian agrees.
The resurrection is NOT history :
www.infidels.org...

c: the evidence for dating the earliest original manuscripts of the NT within a generation of the accounts recorded therein as compared to the earliest extant copies of other ancient historical texts.

So WHAT?!

Mate - did you even THINK about this?

We have the ORIGINAL manuscript from the Book of Mormon -
does that make it true?

We have MSS of the Lord of the Rings from a few years after the originals
does that it make true?

Why on earth do you think the MSS attestation has ANYTHING to do with the truth of the contents?

We have ORIGINAL copies of the myths of Osiris carved in stone -
ORIGINAL copies !

Does that make Osiris true?
Of course not!

This argument is another that we see from Christians all the time -
without any understanding that it proves NOTHING.

If we found the original copy of the Golden Ass of Apuleis - would you claim the story is TRUE?

Of course not, the argument is nonsense.

Iasion

Greetings,

What is your point? If the earliest original mss of the Gospels date from A.D. 100-120 which is 70-90 years after the events they record and the earliest known copies of most other ancient historical documents dates no earlier than 300-900 years after they were written how can you argue that the NT documents lack veracity?

What is this "veracity"?

You confuse two DIFFERENT things, as Christian apologist so often do.

The accuracy of the TEXT has NOTHING to do with the truth of the CONTENTS.

According to your argument,
Gone with the WInd is true because we have the original MSS.

Please, THINK about this before repeating this nonsense argument.

We have millions of exact copies of the Book of Mormon from very shortly after it's writing.
According to YOUR argument, that makes it true.

See the problem?

Having early copies (or even the ORIGINAL) of a book, does NOT make the contents TRUE!

According to your faulty argument -
Scientology is true, Jehovah's Witnesses are right, etc...

and how about the fact that except for very minor errors, the oldest mss and the newest translations are identical and unchanged?

Nonsense.

There is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased".

If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.

Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
members.aol.com...

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
www.ffrf.org...


Iasion

Originally posted by Iasion

Yes, Scholars would admit the King James 1611 Bible may be a bad copy to take as a source,

Oh, so it IS a bad copy? Hard to follow what you are arguing...


Iasion


[edit on 3-8-2006 by Iasion]

Simple, I agree, as do Scholars that it is a Bad Choice when taken in consideration of the Original Text.

If we all happened to read ancient Chaldean, Hebrew and Greek, then it's a no brainer, which copies are best suited for study, but a Fundie like myself can not read, Ancient Chaldean, Hebrew nor Greek, so it is difficult to understand the text at all. I Guess you did not know that.

But, with a Strongs Concordance you can find out what the Hebrew actually noted in the scroll, and reflect upon what the translators opted to utilize for an English Word in their appointed task. Making King Jame's Bible.

So, even as bad as it is, it's still better than any English version out there for my 2 Cents

But if it makes you happy, to have some mystic new speak book that is not a KJV 1611 Bible, then be happy. If your happy, I'm happy

I just thought, there is more to consider than YOUR dismissal. You need not consider it, but others may.



And as an aside...

Do You really care what Scholar's have to say about the Word of God? Scholars have not been viewed upon as the greatest sources of Biblical Teachings. Certainly they wear their OWN DOCTRINE on their sleeves, but as for the Word of God?

But hey, that's just me I guess.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Iasion
DIFFEREMCES between the MT Isaiah and the Great Scroll of Isaiah.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3.

Iasion

I thank you for noting what I have been saying. All these Versions of the Bible think.

Well isn't that enlightening.

Why not know?

Hence the KING JAMES 1611 Bible and a Strongs Concordance. You can find out exactly what was Originally there.

Hey, and keep this quite.....

All those other book's YOU noted, are BASTARDIZED worst than the KJV 1611 Bible, and in the end, all YOU have is their "WORD" for it.

I find it much more satisfactory to have GOD's Word, apposed to someone else's, who, I wouldn't know from Adam.

(Although I would expect they may actually be related more to Cain, than Adam.)

But thanks for reinforcing that with this work, You did an excellent job.

Ciao

Shane

"The accuracy of the TEXT has NOTHING to do with the truth of the CONTENTS."

True, it usually applies in this way. I feel it is a little different in regards to the bible though, because if the accuracy is there then this adds weight to jesus being real, which gives weight to him actually performing such miracles etc and so on.

But yes, in general i totally agree with you and it still applies here. I feel the contents are untruthful and limited, i can't accept what it says from a logical point of view, regardless of accuracy or not.

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings,

What is your point? If the earliest original mss of the Gospels date from A.D. 100-120 which is 70-90 years after the events they record and the earliest known copies of most other ancient historical documents dates no earlier than 300-900 years after they were written how can you argue that the NT documents lack veracity?

What is this "veracity"?

You confuse two DIFFERENT things, as Christian apologist so often do.

The accuracy of the TEXT has NOTHING to do with the truth of the CONTENTS.

Very well, then let's substitute the word "accuracy", as relates the contents of said documents. After all, no historian would doubt that what we see recorded in extant copies of Julius Caesars, "History of the Gallic Wars" is historically accurate and written by Julius Caesar, even though the earliest extant copies date from approx. 1000 years after the original.

According to your argument,
Gone with the WInd is true because we have the original MSS.

Please, THINK about this before repeating this nonsense argument.

No, we are talking about ancient documents, here. There is nothing historically significant in still having original copies of a mss written less than 75 years ago;now if we were having this same discussion 1000 years from now, your argument might have some merit.

We have millions of exact copies of the Book of Mormon from very shortly after it's writing.
According to YOUR argument, that makes it true.

I think you're overstating your point and you are mis-stating mine. My argument was not that the early dating of NT documents equates with their being true, although I do believe they are, my argument was that they can be reliably counted on as reliable in content, historically speaking. In other words that they were written too closely to the original events to be copies of copies and the result of multiple authors over hundreds and hundreds of years. That was the original question of this post, no?

and how about the fact that except for very minor errors, the oldest mss and the newest translations are identical and unchanged?

Nonsense.

There is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased".

If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.

I am sure you have facts to back up your claim. Not the claims of others but facts.

Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
members.aol.com...

Please, provide facts, not just claims. Also, FYI, there is no direct reference to the Trinity in the entire BIble, at least the concept itself, if you mean to say that there are early mss where God the Father, Christ the Son and The Holy Spirit are not mentioned in the same referrence, then again, please back up your claims with
facts.

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
www.ffrf.org...

Iasion

Now, that is ridiculus, facts man, facts...


LS

Greetings,

Originally posted by Shane
Simple, I agree, as do Scholars that it is a Bad Choice when taken in consideration of the Original Text.

There is no original text.

Originally posted by ShaneSo, even as bad as it is, it's still better than any English version out there for my 2 Cents

Hmmm..
You keep saying this.
Scholars say the KJV is a poor version based on poor and late MSS.

In exactly what way do you think it is "better than any English version" ?
(Anyway - it IS an English version.)

HOW is it better?
Do you just mean it has beautiful English?
A lovely type of language?


Iasion

Originally posted by T0by
"The accuracy of the TEXT has NOTHING to do with the truth of the CONTENTS."

True, it usually applies in this way. I feel it is a little different in regards to the bible though, because if the accuracy is there then this adds weight to jesus being real, which gives weight to him actually performing such miracles etc and so on.

Why do you think this?

Consider the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Papyrus of Ani)

We have the ORIGINAL.
The actual original version, directly from the hand of the scribe to us.

So,
do you think this makes the myth of Osiris etc. in it true?

I doubt it.

So,
why do you think any level of accuracy of the NT means ANYTHING about it being true?


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by lightseeker
I do believe they are, my argument was that they can be reliably counted on as reliable in content,

Well, OK, let's assume we agree the text is fairly well certain (more later)...

Originally posted by lightseekerhistorically speaking.

What?
Now you slip in the word "historically".
You keep doing this - making it seem that the TEXTUAL accuracy says something about HISTORY.

We have an ORIGINAL Papyrus of the Ancient Egytpian Book of The Dead - do you consider it "reliable in content, historically speaking"?

Originally posted by lightseeker
In other words that they were written too closely to the original events

Only IF you assume the events took place,
Only IF you assume the events took place when they are claimed to.

Originally posted by lightseeker
to be copies of copies and the result of multiple authors over hundreds and hundreds of years.

Wrong.
We KNOW they ARE copies of copies.
We KNOW there have been MANY changes over the years :

Consider,
the words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have
"...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2)
later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became
"..in thee I am well pleased".
If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.

Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

The RESURRECTION - the most important part of the story - MISSING from the first Gospels. That's why the resurrection stories are so completely different.

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
members.aol.com...

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
www.ffrf.org...


Iasion

Originally posted by lightseeker
Please, provide facts, not just claims.

Wow.
I DID provide the facts!

I named some well-known variations.
AND
gave a link with the specific details (the actual MSS names with the variarions.)

You IGNORED the facts I cited,
then cried "where are the facts?"

Idiot.

Iasion,
If you'd read my previous posts you'd see i'm not exactly pro bible.
What i'm doing here is trying to sift through the bs to see if i should be as critical of it as i am.
Good point though i suppose, the egyptians believed their book was real too.
I guess people just feel the bible is more credible and historically backed than the book of the dead.
I think you'll find that any religious books or texts that can be backed up in any way will gain followers, regardless of it's shortcomings. E.g mormon, scientology.
The bibles one of those books, except that it's harder to sift through the evidence with confidence because of its age.

Consider the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Papyrus of Ani)

We have the ORIGINAL. The actual original version, directly from the hand of the scribe to us.

So, do you think this makes the myth of Osiris etc. in it true?

I doubt it.

Iasion - the same could be said for Hebrew Myths & Fairytales, No? For ALL books of FAITH for that matter. Still trying to debunk Christianity by "Proving" that Jesus never existed I see - Try proving that Noah gathered two of every animal onto his Arc or that Moses parted the Red Sea!

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Iasion
Wow.
I DID provide the facts!

Those where not facts, as much as they were commentaries made by people I couldn't give a crap about. Facts are 2+2=4.

What you offered was Thoughts for consideration.

I named some well-known variations.
AND
gave a link with the specific details (the actual MSS names with the variarions.)

And you named many Bastardized versions of TEXT, the wander down the path of corruption further than anything seen in the King Jame's 1611 Bible. And I got your point, as should everyone else who reads your commentary.

This is exactly what my arguement is based upon.

The King James 1611 Bible, can be studied against the Original Text's (As in the Manuscript Utilized in the Original Tongue). The Strong's Concordance is the Tool to do this with.

You IGNORED the facts I cited,
then cried "where are the facts?"

Idiot.

And here is an interesting premise.

Your views are facts, to you, and you alone. Other's may share your views, but regardless, they are still not fact.

Personal Opinions are not factual.

Factual would be that King David, had a Palace/Residence, in the Meggido Region, and archeaology finding and uncovering it. This makes a Biblical Viewpoint a Fact.

Utilizing Bastardized Texts to promote you view, does little than confirm, the Bastardized Text's are just Bastardized English Versions full of conflicting errors. This does not present what you claim, as FACT.

Your beliefs are just that, Your beliefs. And Mine are Mine. Are my views Facts? Not according to likely 95% of the respondants. Does this diminish the relavancy of my views? Of course not. If you all agreed, I'd know my views would then be based upon lies. I would, at the OUTSIDE, figure less than 5% would habour similiar points of view as I do have. And only a handful of those, would stand up and claim to.

BUT, this does not mean, discussion becomes a mute point, nor does it require we, in a collective sense, need to be refered to as idiot's for not jack boot stepping in sync with you. That is the Facist outlook, and I wouldn't wish to see that label get applied to anyone.

But what you offered was not fact. Just a well intented expression of your views with various other views utilized to make your point. Not Facts.

Do you understand this?

Ciao

Shane







[edit on 6-8-2006 by Shane]

I find it much more satisfactory to have GOD's Word,

Dear Children (and believe us, that's all of you), We consider ourselves pretty patient folks. For instance, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right
We've been patient through your fashions, civilizations, wars and schemes.

We want to let you know about some of the things that are starting to tick Us off.

First of all, your religious rivalries are driving Us up a wall. Enough already! Let's get one thing straight: These are YOUR religions, not Ours. We're beyond them all. Every one of your religions claims there is only one of Us (which by the way, is absolutely true). And each claims its scriptures were written personally by us, and that all the other scriptures are man-made. How do We even begin to put a stop to such complicated nonsense?

Okay, listen up now. We're your Father AND Mother, and We don't play favorites among Our children.

Also, We hate to break it to you, but We don't write. Our longhand is awful, and We've always been more of "doers" anyway. So, ALL of your books, including those Bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired, remarkable people, but they also made mistakes here and there. We made sure of that so that you would never trust a written word more than your own living heart.
You see, one human being to Us, even a bum on the street, is worth more than all the Holy Books in the world. That's just the kind of folks we are. Our spirit is not a historical thing. It's alive right here, right now, as fresh as your next breath.
.
Holy books and religious rites are sacred and powerful, but not more so than the least of you. They were only meant to steer you in the right direction, not to keep you arguing with each other, and certainly not to keep you from trusting your own personal connection with Us.

Which brings Us to Our next point about your nonsense; you act like We need you and your religions to stick up for Us or "win souls" for Our sake. Please, don't do Us any favors. We can stand quite well on our own, thank you. We don't need you to defend Us, and We don't need constant credit. We just want you to be good to each other.

The thing is, We want you to stop thinking of religion as some sort of loyalty pledge to Us.
The true purpose of your religion is so that YOU can become more aware of Us, not the other way around. Believe Us, We know you already. We know what's in each of your hearts, and We love you with no strings attached.
Lighten up and enjoy Us. That's what religion is best for.

What you seem to forget is how mysterious We are.
You look at the petty differences in your Scriptures and say, "Well, if THIS is the truth, then THAT can't be!" But instead of trying to figure out Our Paradoxes and Unfathomable Nature, which by the way, you NEVER will, why not open your hearts to the simple common threads in all religions.
You know what We're talking about. Love and respect everyone. Be kind, even when life is scary or confusing. Take courage and be of good cheer, for We are always with you. Learn how to be quiet, so you can hear Our still, small voice. (We don't like to shout).

Leave the world a better place by living your life with dignity and gracefulness, for you are Our Own Children. Hold back nothing from life, for the parts of you that can die surely will, and the parts that can't, won't.

Simple stuff. Why do you keep making it so complicated? It's like you're always looking for an excuse to be upset. And We're very tired of being your main excuse. Do you think We care whether you call Us: Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Diana, Wakantonka, Brahma, Cerridwen, Father, Mother, God, Goddess or even the Void of Nirvana? Do you think We care which of Our special children you feel closest to, Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Gerald, Mohammed or any of the others? You can call Us and Our Special Ones any name you choose, if only you would go about Our business of loving one another as We love you. How can you keep neglecting something so simple?

We're not telling you to abandon your religions. Enjoy your religions, honor them, and learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents.
Know that Our Special Children, the ones that your religions revolve around, all live in the same place, (Our heart), and they get along perfectly, We assure you.

The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none. Our blessed children of Earth, the world has grown too small for your pervasive religious bigotries and confusion. The whole planet is connected by air travel, satellite dishes, telephones, fax machines, rock concerts, diseases, and mutual needs and concerns.
Get with the program! If you really want to help, then commit yourselves to figuring out how to feed your hungry, clothe your naked, protect your abused, and shelter your poor. And just as importantly, make your own everyday life a shining example of kindness and good humor. We've given you all the resources you need, if only you abandon your fear of each other and begin living, loving and laughing together.

We're not really ticked off. We just wanted to grab your attention because We hate to see you suffer.

In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust,

Us

I have often listen to my little neice talk to her friends...(bare with me)... And some of the conversations presumably fact was discussed with one of her friens. Well the very next day the same discusion came back to my neice but by someone else... Here is the interesting part. The conversation had some things added to it and some removed. So to get to my point if this can happen now with young girls who do not know that much of conspirisies and all that stuff, who is to say that priest's who at one time and age were the only one's to handle and had access to the "scriptures", did not get the need to change it because they too had an opinion about things. Only differance they had the power to change it because alot of people followed their word for everything. And the big snowball effect made up all this things, that we call the bible, and take it for the truth. I am sorry but by the thought of that, made me think for myself and not to follow ancient men in dresses. No offence but I like to follow things that are good, like love, honesty(not 2000 year old honesty there is no such thing.)

StalkingWolf - did you write that piece? I mean, is it your work or the work of someone else that you just shared?

I'm just curious because it pretty well sums up my entire view of religions and dogmas and silly fights over who "owns" G-d.

Anyway, thanks! You got a WATS from me.

Why bother...


[edit on 23-2-2007 by Iasion]