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.

 

HELP....Just read the SECRET BOOK OF JOHN...Those who have and understand pls HELP

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by Mividau
 


What are you talking about? I read not only your post but the whole link provided... THEN did my own research.

Sok though.. You assume what you like. Just because it's a diffrent take on your will to believe something you obviously knew nothing about, save the message itself, you cant assume that I didnt read it fully. You assumed wrong. Just as the poster that responded to me. But hey, whatever floats your ark...


Like you, I was curious about the post.

Like you, I was curious about the message (link)

Like you, I read the message in full.

Unlike you, I found it hard to believe.

Unlike you, I did my own research.

Like most, I offered my take on it.

Like most, I gave you the source to one bit of information that I actually found credible. Not because it was wiki, but because of the 5+ other pages I found relating to the topic have said pretty much the same time, so Wiki was easier to quote because it summed it up in a nutshell.

Miss christian.. Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself...

I'm done with this post and for that matter, any topics you create on the subjects from this point on. Sorry for at least looking after you in some small way, to maybe offer some light on what some things may be. If you want to go around believing everything you read on the internet.. Be my guest. I promice you, there arnt many here that are any more informed than I, or any one else who has done their own research, for that matter.

There are alot of nut jobs out there, and ATS has more than it's share, and that, miss, is a fact. Attempted murderers read and post on this site, for petes sake.



This is what I wrote directly to you
reply to post by theRhenn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dont worry.
I dont understand the book which is why I did the thread.
Maybe there is someone who understands it and can explain it to me.
Have you read the book yet?

LOTZA LUV & Long time no see lol

What did I say to you that warranted you to act like that.
Thats all I am gonna say to that. Someone put words into my mouth earlier.
I assume you thought it was to you.

LOTZA LUV EITHER WAY

P.S. Looked to see what post you replied to.
Like I said to someone else. You replied to what I wrote to
New Covenant. Who didnt read it and was being rather rude in thier post.

But after you're reply I can see you may be just a little to proud to go back and check
I also at this point have a right to say this because you just spewed rude words outta ur mouth.
Didnt take my feelings in to account nor checked to even make sure if you're venom was pointed at the right
person. I think you may be right to just keep you're distance since you cant look before you jump.

I would have never been that rude to you and the post you replied to
I wasnt even that rude to them. I dont like people who dont take the time to read it
Then draw an opinion on the person. I was very respectful as I am now.
I am not name calling you or being rude. But dont think that I have no right to defend myself
against a false acusation. Which is what it was.
edit on 7-8-2011 by Mividau because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mividau

I will be honest. The exert I posted is the only thing I truely understand. It is in complete harmony
with Jesus's teachings and gospel. I even understand the infinit AEON creator. And even who is the HOLY SPIRIT. Plus I knew about the fake spirit before this. Which are all teaching of Jesus.

Where it begins to confuse me is, that is says the AEON did not create this world or reality.
That the true Aeon didnt create us either. But a lesser GOD created against AEONs order of creation,
Created us. Then he grew Jealous because we have the light of the true AEON in us.

It also pretty much states the god of the garden of eden is not JESUS's god ie the true AEON.
That the true Aeon sent Jesus to us.

So please help
LOTZA LUV and THXS
(Do I have the right to be confussed or am I just that stupid????)


Beloved Mividau,

It's all been explained on the thread Revelations: the secret of life, as revealed to John by the only-begotten Light; as you were told, "Let not he that seeks stop seeking, until he finds; and when he finds, he will be troubled: and if he should be troubled, he will become amazed!"

Peace be with you!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Olise
 


I didnt even know there was a thread.
But thanks for the link and imput.

LOTZA LUV



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


Oh dear God in heaven. Fundamentalists! "Don't look at that. It's evil!" I guess he is saying not to believe everything on the internet unless it is posted five times.

Folks, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the 21st century? Or did we slip back into the 19th?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Satan is an Angel of light.

The only Begotten light eh?


I was troubled when i first read this. It is not of the Bible (The one the holy spirit said he influenced) i would take it as a grain of Salt.

This does not Correlate with the word of God , test the spirits to see of they are of God , if they are no correlating scripture. Then it is not of God , but Paganism.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mividau
 


Here is how Manly Hall explains the Kabbala;


According to certain Jewish mystics, Moses ascended Mount Sinai three times, remaining in the presence of God forty days each time. During the first forty days the tables of the written law were delivered to the prophet; during the second forty days he received the soul of the law; and during the last forty days God instructed him in the mysteries of the Qabbalah, the soul of the soul of the law. Moses concealed in the first four books of the Pentateuch the secret instructions that God had given him, and for centuries students of Qabbalism. have sought therein the secret doctrine of Israel. As the spiritual nature of man is concealed in his physical body, so the unwritten law--the Mishna and the Qabbalah--is concealed within the written teachings of the Mosaic code. Qabbalah means the secret or hidden tradition, the unwritten law, and according to an early Rabbi, it was delivered to man in order that through the aid of its abstruse principles he might learn to understand the mystery of both the universe about him and the universe within him.


Here is the link

The book is from 1928 so the copyright is over and no longer in force = free to download and legal


The part I was referring to is the first two parts of the last section of the book. I would post it but it is pretty large.

Some Christians have always made the claim a Christians heritage was essentially Jewish because of the shared documents of the Old Testament, but that is as far as it ever went. Well, here is a part of Hebrew scripture, albeit a hidden one. Not secret but hidden. The guidelines for studying the Kabbala was that a man had to be 40 years of age, preferably with a family and have a steady trade, this it was explained was to give him an anchor to steady him and keep him on the middle path. The Jewish Faith teaches moderation in all things.

So yes it is true that it is not part of the Bible, it is much older. It is also true that most schools of magic, and or mystery schools credit the Kabbala as one of their sources, but does that mean we can't look at it? Or that we shouldn't? So far I don't see anything scary about it.

I believe the concept that God is describing to John in the first part of the book is the same one that Manly Hall is describing as well. It is not an easy concept to describe, and I think these are two different approaches to the same thing. I know that if you look at what Hall says about symbolism, he explains that it is layered so to speak. This, he explains is so that it is revealed to those that have the knowledge to understand with, or as the Christians say eyes to see, and ears to hear.

He goes on to say that this also serves to protect the uninitiated from knowledge they are not prepared for. Therefore when you read scripture it is a good idea to always ask if it is saying something literal or is it speaking symbolically, but in order to do this one must be familiar with the symbols. Looking at parables this way, can give some new insights.

In your OP was a paragraph from John that I remembered this morning;




“When they come forth from the body, such a soul is given over to the powers created by the rulers, bound in chains, and cast into prison again. Around and around it goes until it manages to become free from forgetfulness through knowledge. And so, eventually, it becomes perfect and is saved.”


I think this is describing the karmic cycle of reincarnation. If you read the Bible there is no mention of Jesus between the age of 13 and 30. However there is evidence of an Esau in the writings of India. Esau - not to be confused with Esau the oldest son of Isaac - is said by some writers to have been Jesus' actual name. The Esau of Indian lore was an exceptional young man from the west who came in the time of Jesus and studied and taught amongst their holy men for a time.

Was it Jesus? I don't know, but if it was then the idea that Jesus taught reincarnation and karma is not only possible but likely. According to some this is where Jesus learned to control his power and develop discipline and self control. Indeed one book from the Apocrypha describes how Jesus used to kill birds and bring them back to life as a young child. Another one tells the story of how a neighbor boy wronged him, and he struck the boy dead, he waited three days to bring the boy back to life. I may be a little off on details as it has been several years since I read this. I would look it up but it is already 1:00 AM and I need some humor in my day.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




(The one the holy spirit said he influenced)


When exactly did this happen? Do you have some proof of this or a source?

To the OP, just stumbled on this;

Apocryphal Gospel of Mary (Magdelan)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." (KJV)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"



1.First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
2.Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.
3.Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.
4.The gospel of Thomas is not included in the Canon of the New Testament for the following reasons. a.The gospel of Thomas fails the test of Apostolic authority. None of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus ever quoted from the gospel of Thomas. This indicates that they either did not know of it or that they rejected it as spurious. In either case, the early church fathers fail to support the gospel of Thomas' claim to have been written by the apostle. It was believed to by written around 140 A.D. There is no evidence to support its purported claim to be written by the Apostle Thomas himself.
b.The gospel of Thomas fails to conform to the rule of faith. It purports to contain 114 "secret sayings" of Jesus. Some of these are very similar to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Four Gospels. For example the gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, "A city built on a high hill cannot be hidden." This reads the same as Matthew's Gospel except that high is added. But Thomas claims that Jesus said, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That concept is pantheistic. Thomas ends with the following saying that denies women salvation unless they are some how changed into being a man. "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
c.The gospel of Thomas fails the test of continuous usage and acceptance. The lack of manuscript evidence plus the failure of the early church fathers to quote from it or recognize it shows that it was not used or accepted in the early Church. Only two manuscripts are known of this "gospel." Until 1945 only a single fifth-century copy translation in Coptic had been found. Then in 1945 a Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This compares very poorly to the thousands of manuscripts that authenticate the Four Gospels.




edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


So it's all a question of authority. Which exactly doesn't come as a surprise. Some of the invasive factions of the christianities are so deeply steeped in authority, that it appears that this is what it's all about.

The gnostic religion (and consequently whatever comes from it) is basically an anti-authoritarian system, so better kill the gnostics and burn their texts, before anyone starts to doubt AUTHORITY.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
No , you just kill them when they start killing you and hope you win.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Yes I just read the Gospel of Mary. Which I did enjoy alot.
Now I guess I am further down the Rabbit Hole so to speak LOL.

I also heard Jesus may have been in India too.
Some people go further into the theory stateing that
Jesus is the son of Cleo Patra and Ceasar.

All I know is there is a overall spiritual harmony to the gnostic's.
We are spiritual beings which maybe why I am being pulled to them.

LOTZA LUV



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mividau
 


Replying in reverse order today. I had intended to give you a heads up about the rabbit-hole you were entering before you fell into it, but yesterday was busy and last night was late.
Sorry.

I too am drawn to Gnosticism, and have read time and again that Mother Mary was an Essene as well as Joseph, this was a Jewish Mystery school. The way I have come to understand it Joseph's role in this marriage was more or less that of a guardian to Mary who had dedicated her life to study and prayer - holy woman by her own choice - and while all Essene women did not do this, it was one of their options. If indeed both "parents" of Jesus were of the Essene mystery school, that would go a long way to explain why he would travel to India for more training in techniques which are generally not taken seriously in the West - some do - but are core beliefs in Eastern Philosophies.

Also I remembered another book; The Chakras by C.W. Leadbeater written in 1927. I have bought and given it away so many times that it is a wonder that I did not remember it before. Here is a link to a downloadable pdf, and again the copyright is expired = legal;

The Chakras by C. W. Leadbeater

The interesting thing about this book to me is that the ten color plates of the book are by a Catholic Priest - see page 11 through 13 - unfortunately the pdf does not seem to mention his name, though the printed versions I had always did The Theosophical Society was the society which Manly P. Hall founded along with a museum. Both are still existent and are located in California. Many Presidents have lauded Hall, and the society and many have visited his museum of literature. Much has been said pro and con about Hall and his Society and they have been repeatedly linked to the Freemasons, but he was on a similar search to the one you and I are on, except that he was lucky enough to find a benefactor and to have lived in a time when these already very old books could still be searched out and found. He did so and filled the museum with these books.

Actually, right after the turn of the last century 19th - 20th the schools in America were teaching such theories as spiritualism and enlightenment and free thinking. It was only after industrialist like Carnegie and Mellon, seeing what Germany had done, pushed through and funded standardized and compulsory public education that these theories were dropped from curriculums across the country. You see they did not want free thinkers. Free thinkers would not suffer abuse on a factory floor for very long, they would simply leave. It is a fact that Carnegie has contributed more financially to the cause of public education that the Federal Government ever has. This may not be directly related to the thread but indirectly it shows why there is so much resistance to this sort of material, it has been trained out of us.

As for the Freemasons, a lot has been said about them pro and con, but my personal jury so to speak is still out on this matter. I know the guys that cook the pancake breakfast before our annual parade in my small town are not evil power hungry fiends, but my good friend's father-in-law used to be a loyal Mason. He never missed a meeting or gathering. Then when he reached a certain level he just stopped going. He still will tell no one why. He just shakes his head and looks at the ground by his feet when he is asked.

I think I have actually discovered what it was that caused him to quit - secret knowledge which many refer to - but that is not for public release. To OP if you want to know U2U me and I will tell you. You seem thoughtful enough to hear it and keep it in the proper perspective as something to consider. Too many people are too defensive and too close minded about religion for me to release it en masse. To me this sort of release seems like it would be a cruel thing to do to those who are not seeking.

On of the reasons my jury is still out is because my sister - who also attended Catholic School all her life - thinks they are great. She is also conducting her own search for the truth and I have the greatest respect for her, therefore...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." (KJV)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (KJV)

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"


We are discussing here the accuracy of the Canonized Bible as set forth through the actions of the Ecumenical Councils. We are also considering the motives behind it. Indeed, the OP was about an apocryphal book which was cut from this Canonized Bible. You are presenting evidence from the Bible to back up your claim that the Holy Spirit influenced the Bible - this would be called circular evidence, much like circular logic it reveals nothing. On top of that you are quoting from a newer revision than the one we are discussing, one that was authorized by an English King and has it's own problems of validity.

Even if you had used the proper revision - closest we have now is the Jerusalem Bible - this can hardly be considered a proper source. Let me try an analogy here; If the fox is guarding the chicken coop and some chickens disappear and the fox is discovered with blood and feathers on his mouth, it would hardly be proper to take the foxes word that a weasel came and did it.



1.First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.


Even the Catholics no longer preach that the books of the Bible were actually written by the Apostles. I know this first hand from thirteen years of Catholic education.



2.Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative. 3.Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.


Here it is again represented that all of Christendom decided this, but this is not the case. As I pointed out in a previous post this thread these were the Greek Orthodox, Old Catholics and new Roman Catholics. The other sects of Christianity were excluded from this decision and then over the course of centuries hunted down and exterminated through the Crusades ordered by the Vatican. Indeed the Roman Emperor Constantine I was a pagan when he called this group together and only converted to Christianity on his deathbed.




4.The gospel of Thomas is not included in the Canon of the New Testament for the following reasons.

a.The gospel of Thomas fails the test of Apostolic authority. None of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus ever quoted from the gospel of Thomas. This indicates that they either did not know of it or that they rejected it as spurious. In either case, the early church fathers fail to support the gospel of Thomas' claim to have been written by the apostle. It was believed to by written around 140 A.D. There is no evidence to support its purported claim to be written by the Apostle Thomas himself.

b.The gospel of Thomas fails to conform to the rule of faith. It purports to contain 114 "secret sayings" of Jesus. Some of these are very similar to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Four Gospels. For example the gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, "A city built on a high hill cannot be hidden." This reads the same as Matthew's Gospel except that high is added. But Thomas claims that Jesus said, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That concept is pantheistic. Thomas ends with the following saying that denies women salvation unless they are some how changed into being a man. "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

c.The gospel of Thomas fails the test of continuous usage and acceptance. The lack of manuscript evidence plus the failure of the early church fathers to quote from it or recognize it shows that it was not used or accepted in the early Church. Only two manuscripts are known of this "gospel." Until 1945 only a single fifth-century copy translation in Coptic had been found. Then in 1945 a Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This compares very poorly to the thousands of manuscripts that authenticate the Four Gospels.


Again "early church fathers" refers to the Ecumenical Councils as mentioned above. The Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi because it had to be hidden from the purging Roman Catholics. Now you are saying that since the these same people did not accept it or quote from it, it is not valid. Again this is circular logic and something akin to saying the evil ones did not believe it so it must be evil.


Now after presenting this argument of yours I am wondering if you are Catholic or Greek Orthodox. If you are neither, then presenting this as proof is a little odd. Also I would like to add that we are curious as to what it is that was cut from the Bible and we would like to read it. We are not saying any of these things are right or true, anymore than we have said that the Bible is incorrect or false, and yet you started your posts on this thread by warning caution lest we fall into a trap and get taken down a dangerous path - I paraphrase here - and yet I do not see what is so dangerous to our souls in looking at what has been hidden from us.

Book burnings are bad, M'kay. I think we can all agree with that, this makes the book burners less than good at the very least. You are handing the book burners authority to tell you what to believe. I cannot do this.

Thank you for your reply though.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




No , you just kill them when they start killing you and hope you win.


What about "Thou shalt not kill?" Are the Church Fathers selling indulgences again as they once did?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
No , you just kill them when they start killing you and hope you win.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


I have the impression, that this post was addressed to me. I'm uncertain as to which 'they' you refer to, who start killing. Generally gnostics had some rather non-violence principles, so it's unlikely, that they would start on any killing-sprees.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


There is actually some rather solid evidence, that gnosticism at least ran in Jesus' family (his own position is mainly speculations).

His alleged cousin, John the baptizer, has his 'own' (still existing) gnostic religion, though with some antagonism between them and the Jesus character from NT.

Don't ascribe to much value to contemporary gnostic-hybrid religions/systems. Much is just superficial adaptions of original gnosticism.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Itwanna , the Catholic church is one of the Whores of Babylon.

Their Etiquette is Blasphemy.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Here is your history lesson on the Bible.




The Bible comes from two main sources - Old and New Testaments - written in different languages. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, with some books written in Aramaic. The following are brief snap shots of the beginning and ending of the Old Testament and the reasons for the first two translations of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Aramaic and Greek
•1875 B.C. Abraham was called by God to the land of Canaan.
•1450 B.C. The exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.

There are no known autographs of any books of the Old Testament. Below is a list of the languages in which the Old Testament books were written.
•1450-1400 B.C. The traditional date for Moses' writing of Genesis-Deuteronomy written in Hebrew.
•586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. They remained in Babylon under the Medo-Persian Empire and there began to speak Aramaic.
•555-545 B.C. The Book of Daniel Chapters. 2:4 to 7:28 were written in Aramaic.
•425 B.C. Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew.
•400 B.C. Ezra Chapters. 4:8 to 6:18; and 7:12-26 were written in Aramaic.




The following is a list of the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that are still in existence.
•The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
•Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.
•Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D. The following are examples of the Hebrew Masoretic text-type. ◦Aleppo Codex: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947.
◦Codex Leningradensis: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.


The Old Testament was translated very early into Aramaic and Greek.
•400 B.C. The Old Testament began to be translated into Aramaic. This translation is called the Aramaic Targums. This translation helped the Jewish people, who began to speak Aramaic from the time of their captivity in Babylon, to understand the Old Testament in the language that they commonly spoke. In the first century Palestine of Jesus' day, Aramaic was still the commonly spoken language. For example maranatha: "Our Lord has come," 1 Corinthians 16:22 is an example of an Aramaic word that is used in the New Testament.
•250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. It is sometimes designated "LXX" (which is Roman numeral for "70") because it was believed that 70 to 72 translators worked to translate the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint was often used by New Testament writers when they quoted from the Old Testament. The LXX was translation of the Old Testament that was used by the early Church.


The following is a list of the oldest Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament that are still in existence. ◦Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains nine Old Testament Books in the Greek Septuagint and dates between 100-400 A.D.
◦Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus each contain almost the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint and they both date around 350 A.D.

------------------------

The New Testament


45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.

•125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
•200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
•200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
•225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
•250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
•350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
•350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: [B] is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.


Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated.
•180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D.
•195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology.
•300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac.
•300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects.
•380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It continues to be the authoritative translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The Protestant Reformation saw an increase in translations of the Bible into the common languages of the people.
•Other early translations of the Bible were in Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic, Slavic, and Gothic.
•1380 A.D. The first English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe. He translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was a translation from a translation and not a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate because he did not know Hebrew or Greek.


Printing greatly aided the transmission of the biblical texts.
•1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first printed Bible in Latin. Printing revolutionized the way books were made. From now on books could be published in great numbers and at a lower cost.
•1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament was printed for the first time by Erasmus. He based his Greek New Testament from only five Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus Receptus or the "received texts."
•1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was published. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Latin and Greek. Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise later editions of his New Testament. Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his translation on the Old Testament into English which he did not complete because he was martyred in 1534.
•1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations.
•1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament made use of the oldest Greek manuscripts which date from 175 A.D. This was the Greek New Testament text from which the NASV and the NIV were translated.
•1971 A.D. The New American Standard Version (NASV) was published. It makes use of the wealth of much older Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available that weren't available at the time of the translation of the KJV. Its wording and sentence structure closely follow the Greek in more of a word for word style.
•1983 A.D. The New International Version (NIV) was published. It also made use of the oldest manuscript evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-thought" translation and reads more easily than the NASV. ◦As an example of the contrast between word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations, notice below the translation of the Greek word "hagios-holy"
NASV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own."
NIV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."
◦The NIV supplies "understood" information about the Day of Atonement, namely that the high priest's duties took place in the compartment of the temple known specifically as the Most Holy Place. Note that the NASV simply says "holy place" reflecting the more literal translation of "hagios."

As with any ancient book transmitted through a number of handwritten manuscripts, the question naturally arises as to how confident can we be that we have anything resembling the autograph. Let us now look at what evidences we have for the integrity of the New Testament manuscripts. Let us look at the number of manuscripts and how close they date to the autographs of the Bible as compared with other ancient writings of similar age.
A.Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about A.D. 116. Only one manuscript of his work remains. It was copied about 850 A.D.
B.Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote The Jewish War shortly after 70 A.D. There are nine manuscripts in Greek which date from 1000-1200 A.D. and one Latin translation from around 400 A.D.
C.Homer's Iliad was written around 800 B.C. It was as important to ancient Greeks as the Bible was to the Hebrews. There are over 650 manuscripts remaining but they date from 200 to 300 A.D. which is over a thousand years after the Iliad was written.
D.The Old Testament autographs were written 1450 - 400 B. C. 1.The Dead Sea Scrolls date between 200 B.C. to 70 A. D and date within 300 years from when the last book of the Old Testament was written.
2.Two almost complete Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament date about 350 A. D.
3.The oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament dates about 950 A. D.
4.Genesis-Deuteronomy were written over 1200 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Codex Vaticanus is an almost complete Greek translation of the Old Testament dating around 350 A.D. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest complete Old Testament manuscript in Hebrew and was copied around 950 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from within 200-300 years from the last book of the Old Testament. However since the five books of Moses were written about 1450- 1400 B.C. the Dead Sea Scrolls still come almost 1200 years after the first books of the Old Testament were written.


E.The New Testament autographs were written between 45-95 A. D. 1.There are 5,664 Greek manuscripts some dating as early as 125 A. D. and an complete New Testament that dates from 350 A. D.
2.8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts.
3.8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic, Coptic, Slavic, Syriac, and Armenian.
4.In addition, the complete New Testament could be reproduced from the quotes that were made from it by the early church fathers in their letters and sermons.

Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."
A.Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.1.The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
2.Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.

B.The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.1.Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
2.The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
3.The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.


The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, from later books such as the gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not.
A.Clement (30-100 A.D.) wrote an epistle to the Corinthian Church around 97 A.D. He reminded them to heed the epistle that Paul had written to them years before. Recall that Clement had labored with Paul (Philippians 4:3). He quoted from the following New Testament books: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
B.The apostolic fathers Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (65-155 A.D.), and Papias (70-155 A.D.) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. They thereby authenticated nearly the entire New Testament. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John.
C.Justin Martyr, (110-165 A.D.), cited verses from the following 13 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
D.Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.), wrote a five volume work Against Heresies in which,1.He quoted from every book of the New Testament but 3 John.
2.He quoted from the New Testament books over 1,200 times.


Many scholars have spent a lifetime of study of the textual variants. The following is the conclusion of the importance of these variants as they relate to the integrity of the New Testament text.
A.There are over 200,000 variants in the New Testament alone. How do these variants effect our confidence that the New Testament has been faithfully handed down to us?
B.These 200,000 variants are not as large as they seem. Remember that every misspelled word or an omission of a single word in any of the 5,600 manuscript would count as a variant.
C.Johann Bengel 1687-1752 was very disturbed by the 30,000 variants that had recently been noted in Mill's edition of the Greek Testament. After extended study he came to the conclusion that the variant readings were fewer in number than might have been expected and that they did not shake any article of Christian doctrine.
D.Westcott and Hort, in the 1870's, state that the New Testament text remains over 98.3 percent pure no matter whether one uses the Textus Receptus or their own Greek text which was largely based on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
E.James White, on p. 40 of his book The King James Only Controversy states: "The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally altar the message of the Scriptures! I make this statement (1) fully aware of the wide range of textual variants in the New Testament, and (2) painfully aware of the strong attacks upon those who have made similar statements in the past."
F.Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts that any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."
G.When textual critics look at all 5,600 Greek New Testament manuscripts they find that they can group these manuscripts into text-types or families with other similar manuscripts. There are four text-types.





Figure 1. Age differences between Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts.
1.The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri and in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus all of which date prior to 350 A.D.
2.The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.
3.The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts. Over 90 percent of all 5,600 Greek New Testament manuscripts are of the Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine text-type is "fuller" or "longer" than other text-types, and this is taken as evidence of a later origin. The reason that we have so many manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type is because the Byzantine Empire remained Greek speaking and Orthodox Christian until Islamic Turks overran its capital, Constantinople, in 1453. Constantinople is now called Istanbul and is Turkey's largest city, although no longer its capital.
4.The Caesaarean text-type, disputed by some, found in p 45 and a few other manuscripts.


The reason the King James version differ from the NASV and the NIV in a number of readings is because it is translated from a different text-type than they are.
A.The King James Version was translated from Erasmus' printed Greek New Testament which made use of only five Greek manuscripts the oldest of which dated to the 1,100 A.D. These manuscripts were examples of the Byzantine text-type.
B.The NASV and the NIV make use of the United Bible Societies 4th Edition 1968 of the New Testament. This edition of the Greek New Testament relies more heavily on the Alexandrian text-type while making use of all 5,664 Greek manuscripts. The reasons that the NASV and NIV find the Alexandrian text-type more reliable are the following: 1.This text-type uses manuscripts date from 175-350 A.D. which includes most of the papyri, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
2.The church fathers from 97-350 A.D. used this text-type when they quoted the New Testament.
3.The early translations of the New Testament used the Alexandrian text-type.






edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Do you not think if God wanted other books in the Bible he could have gotten the books in the Bible?
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Do you not think if God wanted other books in the Bible he could have gotten the books in the Bible?
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


This is a circle-argument with premises leading to a pre-determined answer. It 'proves' NOTHING.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join