It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Myth: Old bibles are truer than new ones and contains secrets

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Most translations of the bible are made from the exact same sources, and there's not much difference in different "originals" which have survived to this day, the only difference is that there are more of these "originals" today than 500 or 1000 years ago, and together with a greater knowledge about language, particularilly ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I don't even claim today's bibles are better than the Latin, German and English transcripts made over time, I can proove it. In other words we are way more capable and fit to translate ancient material to modern languages than were people like King James or Gutenberg.

Still gullible people claim that the older the Western copy is, the truer it's content is, even truer than the Greek and Hebrew sources, atleast where it differs from today's printed bibles. Bogus. Never before have we had a greater understanding of ancient biblical language than today, atleast in the West, and never before are the scholars more free to express the truth rather than political correctness and Church dogma, than today. So all you idiots who claim bibles like the Latin Vulgate contains secrets unmentioned in modern bibles, well, you are stupid, historyless and blatant useful idiots. For most old Western copies of the Bible are based on the Latin Vulgate, a copy of copies made to suit the Catholic Church, not truth. Still you cling to your unauthorised leatherbound dark age copies made to fulfill the wishes of the writers benefactors. And I thought this site was into breaking down conspiracy not help it continue into the 21th century.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
both the old bible and the newer versions are all based on the same fake story so saying one has more truth in it than the other is a waste of time IMO.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Europe
 


Yep, it's like saying that somehow the stories and witnesses of and about UFO phenomenon from 60's were more credible then ones from today



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe King James made some radical changes, including removing reference to reincarnation and changing a passage about poisoners to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live..."

So, though I agree with the second poster in general, I also disagree with you specifically.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
"So all you idiots who claim bibles like the Latin Vulgate contains secrets unmentioned in modern bibles, well, you are stupid, historyless and blatant useful idiots."

Have you ever thought about writing a book about how to make friends and influence people?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Europe
both the old bible and the newer versions are all based on the same fake story so saying one has more truth in it than the other is a waste of time IMO.


I am not talking as a believer here, but I am interrested in a correct text, translated through linguistic science where things like semantics and etymology is concidered in attempts at bringing as correct translation as possible, beyond political agenda and church dogma, and that's where we have come today. Through an academic and scientific approach, not through forging a text to fit a certain emperor or pope or church or political system. I am not saying the story is more true today than it was ages ago. I am simply saying that the art of translating is a science, and since we have come a bit further in understanding ancient languages and history we are better suited today than let's say twohundred or a thousand years ago -- to translate one of the cornerstones of most Western societies.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
"So all you idiots who claim bibles like the Latin Vulgate contains secrets unmentioned in modern bibles, well, you are stupid, historyless and blatant useful idiots."

Have you ever thought about writing a book about how to make friends and influence people?


He he, got me there
But no matter how I had fraced myself, the essence would still be the same. A translation like the Catholic Vulgate is one of the most terrible translations available, seen through the eyes of the linguistic and historical sciences. It's not my personla oppinion, it's beyond doubt. Still most Catholics and concervative christians cling to this work simply because it was the foundation of Catholicism.

And to 5thElement: No. It would be like reading Beowolf translated into Russian and then into German by churches and states interrested in using the book for their own means in the 16th century without concidering the very meaning and essence of the work -- and then into English. As you understand, the text would probably be unrecognisable to a scholar, and he would have to battle idiots more than scholars on even basic things like the names of people and places and why there are several additions and removals in the old translations. I know that when I want to know about the ancient Norwegian kings in depth, I would search in the original sagas, not in Catholic translations of Edda from the Middle Ages.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
well some of the newer bible material is realy older then the older bible compalition,for example i can go get the gosp. of mary and judas, or dead sea gnostic scrolls,all the part of the puzzle make a much clearer picture.So yes ther are some older more complet works of the bible that havent survived the roman counsle of marsi,and therefor do for a fact hold more documentation,so therefor hold more "secrets" to the picture as a whole.Always rember the word of god is ever evolving,and we still havent found all the old recording yet .



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Well, the books you mention were never in the Bible or Biblia meaning Book of Books, which contained the Hebrew Tannakh and the Christian "canonical" writings as compiled by catholic bishops in the first couple of centuries AD. None of the books you mention are concidered canonical writings. But as you said these books brings new light to the early Jesus movement, but they were never gathered into a Bible....



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Most translations of the bible are made from the exact same sources, and there's not much difference in different "originals" which have survived to this day, the only difference is that there are more of these "originals" today than 500 or 1000 years ago, and together with a greater knowledge about language, particularilly ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I don't even claim today's bibles are better than the Latin, German and English transcripts made over time, I can proove it. In other words we are way more capable and fit to translate ancient material to modern languages than were people like King James or Gutenberg.

Still gullible people claim that the older the Western copy is, the truer it's content is, even truer than the Greek and Hebrew sources, atleast where it differs from today's printed bibles. Bogus. Never before have we had a greater understanding of ancient biblical language than today, atleast in the West, and never before are the scholars more free to express the truth rather than political correctness and Church dogma, than today. So all you idiots who claim bibles like the Latin Vulgate contains secrets unmentioned in modern bibles, well, you are stupid, historyless and blatant useful idiots. For most old Western copies of the Bible are based on the Latin Vulgate, a copy of copies made to suit the Catholic Church, not truth. Still you cling to your unauthorised leatherbound dark age copies made to fulfill the wishes of the writers benefactors. And I thought this site was into breaking down conspiracy not help it continue into the 21th century.

Nobody has claimed that the Latin Vulgate contains "secrets unmentioned in modern bibles". What are you even trying to say and who are these imaginary "idiots"? Are you perhaps referring to KJV-onlyists?


Originally posted by Amaterasu
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe King James made some radical changes, including removing reference to reincarnation and changing a passage about poisoners to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live..."

So, though I agree with the second poster in general, I also disagree with you specifically.

No, he did not remove anything about reincarnation. Reincarnation was, however, accepted as fact by the Alexandrian church, which is, coincidentally enough, the source of our earliest New Testament manuscripts.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
All I have to say is.....

It's fun figuring out the secrets...The light shows are a little unnerving though.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The Vulgate differs greatly from the earliest Greek texts available, and was composed much later. There are many mysterious teachings in the Vulgate which in many cases have been brought forth to this day. Like how they use the word translated Church in English, from Gr. Kyriakos, allthough this word didn't exist even in the early Greek manuscripts, it wasn't invented yet, for it basically means "the Assembly of Cæsar and the Roman Senators taken over by the Pope and his Cardinals" a perversion of the Latin word Curia. However a word meaning "congregation" did. Further it added the part about Jesus leaving for "Heaven" and perverted the coarce of the Crusifiction etc. Not mentioned in the old Greek, though a word which may mean "Northward" was. This together with many other forgeries fit nicely into the long row of forgeries made by the Church in order to justify it's existance and power over you and I. So there are indeed false mysteries that was introduced or continued in the Vulgata.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It is more accurate to say that the English language has changed and therefore the older versions may be misinterpreted (unless you happen to be good at Elizabethan English.) Translations are not an exact science, and the further we move away from the original text, the more the culture that produced that text is lost to us. We lose some of the nuances of the text.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
is the a bible in existance that predates the councle of marsi,where constanstanoble and the counsul dicided what books go in and wich go out of the bible as a whole?I would like to see all the books that didnt make it in.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe King James made some radical changes, including removing reference to reincarnation and changing a passage about poisoners to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live..."


No, the witch thing wasn't changed from prisoner. The Hebrew word in the verse that you're talking about [Exodus 22.18] is כָּשַׁף kaw-shaf] and it means "to practice magic". Literally, the verse says something like, those who practice magic shouldn't live.

The King James didn't remove any verses about reincarnation. Modern translations that are based on texts older than the Textus Receptus don't include any mention of reincarnation. In fact, both text bases refute reincarnation--Hebrews 9.27. If anything, the Textus Receptus, which the King James is based on, added to the Bible. It added the last half of Mark 16 and a verse in 1 John 5.17, among others. The reason it's said that these were added to the TR is because many of the older Alexandrian and Byzantine texts don't mention these verses at all.

[Edited to resize the Hebrew]

[edit on 3/11/2009 by octotom]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by devareous
 


I believe that the Church council that they canonized books was Nicea, but I could be wrong.

Regardless of which council it was, some books weren't rejected because they were "threatening" to the church or anything like that. They were rejected because they were either heretical or didn't exist yet.

No church father relied on any book outside of the 27 that we now call the New Testament in their writings. Not Thomas' gospel, Judas' gospel, or any other book.

Though, it is true that some didn't recognize or quote books such as 2 Peter or Jude. This was only natural to happen though since all the NT books were letters at one point or another and not every one of the early churches would've had access to them. No church, just like the early church fathers, recognized any spurious writings outside of the books we call the NT as God's Word.

When the "Bible" council met, they basically met, as I said before, to confirm what God's word was, not exclude something. The council was needed so that those that had access to the lesser known books, like 2 Peter, Jude, 2-3 John, and Revelation--could present them to the church and make the case for it being God's word. No apocryphal work was brought up for canonization and just Matthew-Revelation was accepted as Scripture. [Some though viewed other works as important but not on the same level of Scripture, much like the Jews valued, but didn't accept as Scripture 1 Maccabees. An example of this is the Shepherd of Hermas.]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Your wrong on so many levels, I won't even bother...

KJV Bible is NOT from the Latin Vulgate but the Textus Receptus.

new Bible versions are vastly different than the 1611 KJV and are not even close to complete. Some remove whole books, others just chapters and others verses and yet others change the words there.

Secret Codes - I do believe that there is a small code that proves and still does that the Torah has been rewritten EXACTLY like it's predecessors and there s no copyist errors in the KJV Bible. I do not know if there is a Bble Code like some claim that tells everything bout everyone for all time encoded. Maybe it is there, maybe it isn't, I wouldn't guess except to say that if there truly is a Creator GOD and that is HIS WORD he woulda been smart enough I guess to encode it too if he so chose...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Your wrong on so many levels, I won't even bother...

KJV Bible is NOT from the Latin Vulgate but the Textus Receptus.


When did I ever say KJV was based on the Vulgate alone? Or at all? Read again, I didn't say that. I listed them as two excellent examples of terrible translations (however KJV is way better than the Vulgata IMO). However, there are many "corrections" made in TR based on the Vulgate, because his Bysantine sources were incomplete and these are also found in KJV. Nowadays we have great many more and older Greek sources available than Erasmus had back then. So modern translations are by far more accurate than Vulgate, Textus Receptus and King James' Version, taking into concideration that newer texts are based on a wide variety of texts, some as old as first century AD.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
There was an ancient text that no longer exists that two different groups translated from. There was a greater and lesser text translated. The greater text was translated by a christian group which became the KJV. the lesser text was translated by a pagen (no God) group which became all the other versions execpt for KJV and NKJV.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by telepathicjon
 


I am afraid you have been duped. KJV is based uppon a text made from several 9th till 11th century texts. Most modern NTs are based on way older texts, some of them dating back to the first century AD. And I have never heard of pagan bibles
Now how is that even possible?

[edit on 11/3/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join