The Origins of the King James Bible and the New Testament, and the Forgery, and Pagan influences in

page: 16
52
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legna

I typed in "Bacon and Eggs King James" and got over a million hits. Pretty cool huh?

What do you get when you type in "Textus Receptus"?


The joke's on you, THAT is how you react?


No joke on me whatsoever. The OP is oblivious/ignorant to the fact that the KJB is based upon Greek manuscripts (Majority Text/Textus Receptus) that predate the KJB translation by over 1,500 years. Manuscripts available to any scholar today who wants to look at them. Meaning anyone can look at the original manuscripts and see for themselves if the KJB translators made errors or not. In fact there have been 3 major revisions to the 1611 KJB since it was first translated into English.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I thought is was supposed to be translated from the original texts....
Hebrew? Didn't the Greeks copy from that? Still, not convincing to me. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, with some books written in Aramaic. Not Greek.

The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why?

The Romans gave the name Latin to those Italian tribes who revolted demanding Roman citizenship. Instead they were given the Latin name in 85 BC. The name Latin had belonged to the ancient Greek-speaking Latins who had been absorbed into the Roman nation along with the Greek-speaking Sabines. The Italian Latins of 85 BC were given the Roman name in 212. Finally various Germano-Frankish tribes took or were given the name Latin. We use the name Franco-Latins for these Germano-Frankish tribes in order to distinguish them from the Greek speaking and Italian speaking Latins of Roman history.

1. The very existence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I (867-885) that “…we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy . The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language.”

2. Let us contrast this Frankish nonsense with historical reality and the process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines who came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War. These Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the Greek Pelasgians of Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness. Porcius Cato’s inclusion of the history of the Pelasgians in Italy and their union with the Aborigines in his De Origines, repeated in detail by Dionysius, is the only mention of them that this writer is aware of. These combined Aborigines and Pelasgians united with some Trojans who migrated to their land and together they became the ancient Greek speaking Latins whose capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek speaking Latins of Alba Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of Italy who had been settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. The Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece. The Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system.
source
Now the Greeks wrote the NT...right? And if the Greeks were really Romans.....that reminds me of Arrius Piso, the Roman. See how it all comes clear?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I still prefer William Tyndales' version.
Gotta love a martyr that doesn't make other martyrs out of his convictions.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
I thought is was supposed to be translated from the original texts....
Hebrew? Didn't the Greeks copy from that? Still, not convincing to me. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, with some books written in Aramaic. Not Greek.

The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why?

The Romans gave the name Latin to those Italian tribes who revolted demanding Roman citizenship. Instead they were given the Latin name in 85 BC. The name Latin had belonged to the ancient Greek-speaking Latins who had been absorbed into the Roman nation along with the Greek-speaking Sabines. The Italian Latins of 85 BC were given the Roman name in 212. Finally various Germano-Frankish tribes took or were given the name Latin. We use the name Franco-Latins for these Germano-Frankish tribes in order to distinguish them from the Greek speaking and Italian speaking Latins of Roman history.

1. The very existence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I (867-885) that “…we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy . The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language.”

2. Let us contrast this Frankish nonsense with historical reality and the process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines who came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War. These Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the Greek Pelasgians of Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness. Porcius Cato’s inclusion of the history of the Pelasgians in Italy and their union with the Aborigines in his De Origines, repeated in detail by Dionysius, is the only mention of them that this writer is aware of. These combined Aborigines and Pelasgians united with some Trojans who migrated to their land and together they became the ancient Greek speaking Latins whose capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek speaking Latins of Alba Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of Italy who had been settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. The Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece. The Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system.
source
Now the Greeks wrote the NT...right? And if the Greeks were really Romans.....that reminds me of Arrius Piso, the Roman. See how it all comes clear?


I was referring to the NT books, but the KJB authors had available the Septuagint, the Hebrew texts, and a few chapters in Daniel were written in Aramaic to be precise. But specifically I was pointing out the fact that the LXX was in black and white 3 centuries before Christ was born.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
There are no originals. We have copies of copies. The KJB does not use the Septuigent for the OT translation. It was worked on by Origen, who was not a fundamentalist. It is an Alexandrian or critical text.
The KJB uses the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text. It was the uncontested text of the Old Testament for over four hundred years. The oldest surviving manuscripts of Isaiah are two scrolls found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from about a century before the time of Jesus, they are substantially identical with the Masoretic version which forms the basis of most modern English-language versions of the book. The NT was written in the common language of the day to the common people of the day. All of the early English versions including William Tyndale's Bible, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, the Taverners Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible were all based on the Traditional (recieved) text. There are at present about 5,255 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, and approximately 90% of those manuscripts follow the Traditional text.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zachi
 



It was worked on by Origen, who was not a fundamentalist.


Origen wasn't alive in 270 BC when the LXX was completed. It was finished and in black and white 3 centuries almost before Christ was born. And if you re-read what I said I didn't say the KJB translators "USED" the Septuagint, I said it was "available" to them ALONG WITH the Hebrew Texts:


but the KJB authors had available the Septuagint, the Hebrew texts,..


The translators had all those manuscripts available to them when they translated their English version.

edit on 28-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


James Padgett claimed Thomas Jefferson visited him and after reading about Thomas Jefferson's religious leanings, he seems to have had similar religious values about Jesus as James Padgett. James Padgett stated that Jesus visited him and selected him to carry forth his gospel.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 


He could have done well to heed the council of Galatians 1:8. Same thing happened to Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Charles Taze Russell. All these men had to do to protect themselves was heed the Word of Galatians 1:8.

Sad.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Perhaps I should have said the Septuigent was revised by Origen. He was not an original translator. He tried to further conform it to a view more acceptable to his own theology and those of his contemporaries.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zachi
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Perhaps I should have said the Septuigent was revised by Origen. He was not an original translator. He tried to further conform it to a view more acceptable to his own theology and those of his contemporaries.


Well thats not going to get any objection from me. The Gnostics removed entire chapters and verses that they didnt agree with. Google Irenaeus' quotes about Marcion and his followers mutilating the scriptures.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I agree with you on Galatians: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." How many people site an appearance from heaven or how much they feel something to proclaim it as new truth. Do you believe that scripture closed with the Revelation? I think that was the last book written and we now have an every word Bible. If not the where is this passage Psalm 12 fufilled?
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
I need an every word Bible to live by.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zachi
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I agree with you on Galatians: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." How many people site an appearance from heaven or how much they feel something to proclaim it as new truth. Do you believe that scripture closed with the Revelation? I think that was the last book written and we now have an every word Bible. If not the where is this passage Psalm 12 fufilled?
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
I need an every word Bible to live by.



I believe the last inspired epistle or book is The Revelation of Jesus Christ. However, God still speaks via His rhema Word. He still uses the 5-fold ministry to lead His sheep. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. And if you read Matthew 4:4 the Greek term used for "word" is rhema not logos. Meaning we are to live by His spoken Word, day by day, step by step. Of course it will ALWAYS be grounded in His logos Word, but He wants a living, breathing day by day personal relationship with us by the calm still voice in our spirit, not a dull left-brained memorized relationship with His Word written down 2000 years ago.

Make sense?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I am English speaking. I need the Word in my language. I am also a professional interpreter. I speak three different languages. If I want to put my works into one of those languages, it will carry the exact connotation and intonation that I want it too, because I chose it to do so. When God wanted his Word to be in English, He chose men to write it, just as He chose the prophets. He may have first said it in Hebrew, but He could certianly preserve it exactly as He wishes in any language. He has as much command of English as He does of Hebrew or Greek and as much command of the men He chose to do it.
If you believe that you must go back to the original language, then you are abrogatting a principal tenant of the faith - the priesthood of the believer. If I must go to you to find out what God really means, you become my priest. I Peter 2:9 tells us, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light"
If His Word isn't plain and accessable to me, I can't do my job. Habakkuk is a favorite of mine. He penned this: "Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it." We need to make it clear and plain. Refering to archaic languages obscures the view from and puts a man into a position he should not have.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zachi
 


Not exactly sure what you mean. But even as an interpreter you know that not all things translate into another language. And for the basics English is fine, however there are quite a few things that get "lost in translation". A few examples are the one I mentioned from Matthew 4:4. The every " Word" of God Christ said we are to live by is His spoken Word, rhema is a spoken Word. Logos is a written Word. Also "love" in the Greek has 5 different words with different meanings, the English just has one word. Same with "praise" in the OT. Hebrew has 7 different words for praise and all have a different meaning, but in English its just "praise".

The English is fine for salvation and beginner study, but venturing into the original language is a great excercise and adds tremendous color and detail to God's Word.

edit on 30-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Not exactly sure what you mean. But even as an interpreter you know that not all things translate into another language.


I mean that if I interpret my own words into another language, I interpret exactly what I mean. And you error by thinking that God gave His Word and then let man translate it on his own. I mean that I don't need to know the Greek to be enriched. I can read it in English and learn everything God said as clearly as Moses and Paul and all the others did in their languages.
I mean, what do you really know about the original languages? Check out who wrote the Hebrew and the Koine lexicons. How many born agian Christians can you find? Check out your Strong's concordance, you will see it is based on Critical Text reading. I would like to learn Hebrew because it is once again a living language, but be careful about thinking that knowing Greek makes you a "cut above" those who don't. I Cor 8:1 "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." God's plan was for every man to have the Word is his own language and that plan hasn't changed.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zachi
 


Huh? Where is this anger coming from? If it was cool for Christ and the apostles to speak and read Greek I think it would be okay for me as well. And you're not correct, Hebrew is in fact a revived language yes, however Greek never died out. An entire nation still speaks it to this day. Btw, "Koine" isnt something exotic, it only means "common". Koine Greek = common Greek.

Here is another tidbit: when Jesus called Peter a rock in the English do you realize He called Peter a " tiny pebble" (Petros), but called what Peter said " you art the Christ" the large "foundation stone" (Petras)? Now Catholics have a papacy because of an error in reading this text. They falsely assume Christ called Peter a strong rock, when actually Christ was making a play on words..

"You're a tiny little pebble."


edit on 31-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by zachi
 


Huh? Where is this anger coming from?

I"m sorry, I didn't realise I was sounding angry. I just think that God can translate His own words with accuracy. If a person claims special knowlege that other members don't have, it causes problems. If I begin to say, "I know what the Bible really means..." The reason can be anything, but if the other members believe it, then suddenly that person becomes their priest. There can be no argument against special knowledge.


If it was cool for Christ and the apostles to speak and read Greek I think it would be okay for me as well. And you're not correct, Hebrew is in fact a revived language yes, however Greek never died out. An entire nation still speaks it to this day. Btw, "Koine" isnt something exotic, it only means "common". Koine Greek = common Greek.

I'm sure that if Paul was around today, he would speak English very well. He chose the language that would reach the most people, which would be English today. I don't think he would be speaking The Koine he did back then, there is a period called Koine, followed by Medieval period that covers a whole continuum of different speech and writing styles, then modern Greek. We still speak English, but is very different from what was spoken just a few hundred years ago. Greek has also changed over the last 2,000 years. Have you tried speaking to a Grecian in the NT Koine? It would be interesting.



Here is another tidbit: when Jesus called Peter a rock in the English do you realize He called Peter a " tiny pebble" (Petros), but called what Peter said " you art the Christ" the large "foundation stone" (Petras)? Now Catholics have a papacy because of an error in reading this text. They falsely assume Christ called Peter a strong rock, when actually Christ was making a play on words...
They mess up a lot of things.

The Bible interprets itself. John 1:42 tells us the " thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." So, I still don't need Koine to understand. I know that a stone (as in David's sling) is not a rock.





top topics
 
52
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join