Bacon Bible - How a Templar re-wrote the Bible

Very interesting! ...However, from what I know, Shakespeare was the 17th Duke of Earl; who's actual writing style is the same. Could the NKJ Bible be a Bacon origin...why not...it makes sense and of no real harm...as there are concordances in Hebrew and Greek...and Lexicons to delve into when studying the Bible...don't forget the copper tablets and Kimmel Bible, as well as all the Sumerian texts...it would just be a later redacted version...of much older texts which had been previously redacted and edited by the Proto/Orthodox Fathers of the 2 and 3rd Centuries...to give us the Roman Catholic Church. Which was very big on persecution of many innocent people through out the ages.....who didn't uphold their version of Christ and Doctrine.

Originally posted by starheart

Originally posted by theRhenn

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by charles1952

 

Indeed, but the KJB is the only Bible that most of us can read; only a handful of us here can read Hebrew or Greek. Thus, most of the population is misled because of the KJB.

Not true. The RCC has an available version. This is not the same as the KJV as mentioned previously.

Yeah, but does the common public get to read it? It is after all, the RCC's properties, and they agreed with King James at the time, that the KJV be the only one taught in churches.

No, the Catholic Church did not agree with King James at the time -- James being the head of the Protestant Church of England -- and the King James Bible has never been an official version supported by the Roman Catholic church.

@ OP
interesting stuff as usual when it comes to the bible as a topic..

i think the whole issue here is this Jesus thing, it's always some kind of undermining of the divinity of Jesus..

would an updated translation change the core elements of the redemption story? would dates, times, places, people, events suddenly be entirely new things?...i'd like to know this, i don't want what i THINK the truth is, i just want the truth.. if some space lizard eats me when i die, fine..

..from what i can tell it's all about Jesus, that's the only thing the bible has to offer anyway

fast forward this >> if "secret societies" just run everything then what are they even fighting against?
if there's no Jesus then don't they already winning?

i think pastor Conrad Jarrol and that loudmouth Stuart Crane have some good mp3's on these kinds of things

Originally posted by starheart
Yes, you read correctly. The "Authorised" Bible, King James Bible, the one that almost all churches read... has been re-written by a Knight Templar/Rosicrucian.

Many people, including Catholics, believe that the true Bible to follow is the KJB.

The KJV is not 'the one that almost all churches read', and Catholics do not believe it is 'the true Bible to follow.'

Your source offers no evidence that Bacon had anything to do with the KJV. This is a ridiculous myth.

Who keeps coming up with this nonsense when we have dead sea scrolls and other discovered ancient texts to back up what's in the Bible as we know it today?

What you need to find is a church where they teach from Koine, and have classes in reading Koine for new members, if you're worried about the KJV.

It's easy-peasy to pick up an interlinear NT, by the way, it's not like there's an insurmountable mystery here.

You can also pick up a Young's Literal if you want a close to wooden translation.

Originally posted by dollukka
It takes average a year to read the bible and Bacon not only read but rewrite this within months? He must have been non human..

I have heard that Franceis Bacon wrote Shakespeare works and gave us a lot of the english language. It had to be a group of busy people to pull all this off.

OP's source is Tony Bushby, who wrote a book called The Bible Fraud, which is a complete work of fiction, passed off as fact. His crazy theories are debunked in numerous places, including here, but what jumped out at me from that page was this:


Both of these quotes are known frauds. Eusebius refuted here and Pope Leo X refuted here. The former may have been an honest mistake at some point, but the second is attributing a quote to the Pope that actually appeared in an anti-Catholic play.

OP, it's usually a good idea to qualify your sources before posting them -- in this case, you've lost all credibility by falling for a blatantly fraudulent source.

reply to post by abeverage

So which Bible do you trust or is that the whole point? A general pan against Christianity at it's foundation in the Bible?

I know you didn't ask me, but I can't resist...

The Lamsa Bible

Richmond Lattimore's Tx of The Four Gospels and The Revelation

And, for hermeneutics fiends...

E-Sword. The Sword of The Lord Online

It's a wilderness out there.

I thought that this thread was going to tell that the first bible was written on top of bacon slices

reply to post by starheart


That things like "God only likes Jews", or "God hates sex", or "God hates woman; they must be punished", or "God hates fags" may all be lies.

Even if everything that you're say is true; they didn't CREATE The Bible just edited it. The Bible already existed for a long time before that in the original Greek and Hebrew, so the words and core beliefs will still be mostly the same.

OOOOPS, you might have missed this:

The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review our discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1,400 B.C. to 1,400 A.D., which covers the transmission of the scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin. Our starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the scripture in the English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.

John WycliffeThe first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!
www.greatsite.com...

reply to post by starheart


If they know any secrets this is what I believe they are.

(1)They believe in the Messianic age, hence the reason they are called Free-Masons

(2)They believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ.

The Georgia Guide stones are merely proof that they believe they must make this happen. They have become the self proclaimed sect of men who believe they are to make this happen.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

I am not an expert in "Free Masonry", but I don't believe there are any other secrets. The problem is the bible is about love and the spirit of love.

If the "Free Masons" are truly "enlightened", then you have nothing to fear. If not than you should be very afraid of men who believe they can usher in the Messianic Age apart from following the "Spirit of Love", "Christ Jesus".

reply to post by sacgamer25

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

WELL.....We aren't living up to the self fulfilling prophecies then, are we?

I can call the entire list not only a joke, but a scam if we are "supposed" to make these come true.....

So, where can one get a bible written before the KJV? In English.

reply to post by divideandconquer

It's available online in many places.

1. Douai-Rheims. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church's official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner's 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English.

P.s. I looked for, and found, an article dealing withwith even earlier versions. It looks as though the first attempt was about 200 years before Douay-Rheims, again, Latin into English. You may want to consider them.
www.bible-researcher.com...

reply to post by charles1952


Apparently this one is from 350AD

I believe that would qualify as the Oldest version of the bible...

reply to post by Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Thanks, I can always count on you. Nice work in presenting that to us.

I was kind of limiting myself though, because the request was for the oldest Bible in English.

With respect,
Charles1952

While the Op's post tells an interesting tale, it doesn't hold water.

There have now been translations from the original sources into English and other languages using modern technology and they do Not differ from the King James bible which would show it was tampered with.

Originally posted by starheart

Originally posted by theRhenn

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by charles1952

 

Indeed, but the KJB is the only Bible that most of us can read; only a handful of us here can read Hebrew or Greek. Thus, most of the population is misled because of the KJB.

Not true. The RCC has an available version. This is not the same as the KJV as mentioned previously.

Yeah, but does the common public get to read it? It is after all, the RCC's properties, and they agreed with King James at the time, that the KJV be the only one taught in churches.

Sure they did

About the RC bible... I have a copy myself. Well, not I personaly. My mother and grandmother both. (Grandmother has passed so not sure who has hers). I know it to be the correct versions because there are extra books in them.

You can get them just as easy as any other bible. I have heard that the Holy Bible was once #1 on the book ban recomended by the RCC, but people have always had the ability to get a Catholic bible.

See Here

Besides... You do realise that much of what's in the dead sea scrolls are currently in the KJ and the RC bible, right? The only thing I see that might have affected either bibles was what the Catholics deemed worthy to be bound together as scripture taken from sources, vs what the KJ version did, and that the reason for the KJ was for the reader to better understand what may have been confusing to the people in those days. There wasn't much of an education back then unless you were involved in the church or had the money to get that kind of education.

Still.. The Catholic bible is very available for all to read... even online.

Some Wiki info on the Catholic Bible