Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bacon Bible - How a Templar re-wrote the Bible

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post 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..


It took two years and nine months for King James's translators to translate the Bibles, and it took aproximately a year for Bacon to re-structure and code the already translated Bible. And he must have been already fluent in the knowledge of the Bible before re-writing it, thus, saving time when came the time. After all, the Templars must have known pretty much the Bible for claiming knowing the truth about it.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



He considered superstitions and theological interpretations to be "Idols of the Theatre", misleading and false notions of truth:


What bugs me, is if he didn't liked religion, why did he re-wrote the Bible? Why study Ancient Rituals from extremely superstitious civilizations, and why becoming a top-member of a religious group?
So logically, since he wanted humanity to enter a scientifical age, he would've tried to push people toward that direction, by distorting religion to a darker side. Change a couple of words there and here, change some phrasing, and it has a whole new effect.




posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



There must be theologians who can read Greek or Hebrew, you'd think if the KJB was that far off they would say something about it.


But the problem is: against what do they compare it? The modern Greek and Hebrew Bibles are translated from the ancient Greek and Hebrew. And for those who are lucky to have literally the original ones, it was in an ancient form of Greek and Hebrew, with many words and meanings unknown. And, as I show below in reply to arpgme, there was already big differences between the English translations of the Septuagint, Masoretic and Vulgate Bible. People was used to see differences in meanings and words.
Only what I'm worried about is what a group of Mason that wished to destroy religion did to the Bible.

reply to post by charles1952
 



The Douay - Rheims is a Catholic approved version, so is the New American Bible. Also the Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible are approved. There may be more. Catholics may read any version they choose, but the risk of error goes up with the unofficial versions. Only official versions are used in Church teachings and documents.


The reason why "approved" and "authorized" versions are most of the time doubtful in their real authencity, is for the same reason the KJV is exposed: those who approve them had something to win by them. More and more versions gets out, and more and more translation and adaptation gets done, more and more meanings can be distorted. Also, as you said, only approved-authorized Bibles are taught in churches. So, if a group's desire would be to cause the downfall of religion to replace it (such as the Templars tried to do), it will make sure that the books taught creates confusion. Distorting the originals and then approving the modified ones is a sucessful weapon.
The proof: when students read the modern Bibles and see all the condamnations and laws, they step away from it. Only those who were lucky enough to read Greek and Hebrew can see the differences and the modification from the orignals.

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?


No, my point wasn't that Christianity was wrong, it was that Christians may have been following the wrong Bibles. My point was to expose the fact that one of the most read Bibles was modified from the originals, and that maybe all the other "approved" Bibles may be similar.
My guess would be that if someone really wants to learn true Christianity, it shouldn't be by trying to decode the KJV Bible. They must remember that the code was put there by the same ones who re-wrote it. Reading the modern versions wouldn't be a good idea either, for translators had hundred of years to change slowly words, phrasing and meanings.
Their best bet would be to follow the path of theologians and learn Greek or Hebrew, and read the originals Bibles (which is the Septuagint and the Masoretic Bibles), and check the differences and modifications, and decide what to believe. The same way that a newly graduated wants to become a scientist. Research and learning. A belief system is not something to take lightly, and read one version of a book won't help you acquire it.

reply to post by StoutBroux
 



OOOOPS, you might have missed this:


Indeed.
But again, the Wycliffe Bible got its translation from the Vulgate Bible (which was an already modified Bible), and got modified in its meaning, because Wycliffe didn't liked the RCC. It have been again translated through the guy's personal purpose, and not through purely academic reason. That is the problem with most translated Bibles, such as the Wycliffe and KJV. You never know what ideology they tried to obtain while re-writing it.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 



However the 33rd degree - Knights Templar - being the highest is inaccurate. Or at least the wording you have used, implying the Templars are the highest degree, this may not be intentional on your behalf.


You're right, in my excitement I misphrased this part. The 33rd degree of Freemasonry is occupied by the Sovereign Grand Inspector General; however, the Knight Templars also holds the 33rd degree, and are said to be even more powerful than the Sovereign Grand Inspector.
Thank you however for bringing to my attention this slight mistake.



As for the Shakespearen twist, that is because Bacon was the force behind Shakespeare.Who was a spy and courier pidgeon for the Monarchy.His plays were encoded.


According to historians, upon study of archives and journals, there would be no link between Shakespeare and Bacon. Even their poetry's style was very different. As for encoded plays, I bet that Shakespeare had nothing to do with it, and that Bacon tried to claim authorship of the plays.
My theory is that when Bacon was disgraced by the Parliament in 1621 and that he almost lost all his titles, he decided to acquire all Shakespeare's plays (who was dead since 5 years), coded them with his cipher, and tried to claim authorship, so that he may be re-graced.

reply to post by Unity_99
 



Psalms 46 is not unknown to cipher enthusiasts. This is the famous Psalms where it has been written that Shakespeare wrote his name in cipher. You see, the 46th word from the beginning is "Shake", and the 46th word from the end (not counting the final "Selah") is "Speare". The theory goes that Shakespeare was 46 years old when the KJV was printed.


But why would he have wrote his name in the Bible? It isn't even something useful, like a place or a date, it's just a name. Plus, Shakespeare was Catholic, not Protestant; I'm sure he wouldn't have wrote his name in a Protestant Bible designed to replace the Catholic Bible. It seems like Bacon's work, with his cipher knowledge, but why? Was he already planning to claim authorship for Shakespeare's plays?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




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.


But nobody trust the RCC; it's a vicious circle. The old RCC's persecutions caused people to get away from it and turned themselves towards Protestanism. But Protestanism's main Bible, the KJV, has been modified. So it's either follow the KJV, or read the RCC's Bible, although it created wars and persecution. And, to make things complicated, the Vulgate Bibles were again rumoured to be modified from the originals. So faced with two modified Bibles, people went to the one that didn't caused 8 crusades.


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:


Oh, because you really expect the elite and the Popes acknowledge it? Did you really expect the Pope saying:
"Yep, we let a Templar re-write the Bible, you know. It seemed cool fooling people into believing something distorted."
What did you expect? Popes need to keep the little control over Christianity they got left; of course they're gonna deny the whole thing and call the guy crazy.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 



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.


Not necessarely. In the originals Bibles, God hated "sodomy", which in ancient Greek meant "sex without love" or "selfish sex"; in the KJV and recent versions, "sodomy" has been replaced by "homosexuality", leading people to believe that God was against gays instead of being against selfish/immoral sex.
Words can be subtlely added or substracted, especially if the translation process happened over centuries. One word modified in one Bible, then another one in another Bible, and at the end, it's changed without people noticing.
Here's three examples, taken from Wikipedia:


When ancient scribes copied earlier books, they wrote notes on the margins of the page (marginal glosses) to correct their text—especially if a scribe accidentally omitted a word or line—and to comment about the text. When later scribes were copying the copy, they were sometimes uncertain if a note was intended to be included as part of the text. See textual criticism. Over time, different regions evolved different versions, each with its own assemblage of omissions and additions.



These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is generally close to that of the Masoretes and vulgate. For example, Genesis 4:1-6 is identical in both the LXX, Vulgate and the Masoretic Text. Likewise, Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same. There is only one noticeable difference in that chapter, at 4:7, to wit:

Genesis 4:7, LXX (NETS): If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.

Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (NRSV): If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

Genesis 4:7, Latin Vulgate (Douay-Rheims): If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.

This instance illustrates the complexity of assessing differences between the LXX and the Masoretic Text as well as the Vulgate.


As you can see here, the Latin Vulgate is much more complicated at interpreting than the LXX (Septuagint) and the Masoretic. The "sin's desire for you" is replace by "the lust", without precising whose's lust. So it's like the Vulgate says to control lust, instead of saying to control sin.
As for the LXX and the Masoretic, the LXX says clearly how a sin is a sin, while in the Masoretic, it only says "if you do well". That can be anything; a robber may believe that robbing was a well thing to do. The LXX, however, tells you clearly that you sin if you "don't divide correctly".
However, the sin's relationship with the sinner is better explained in the Masoretic text than in the LXX.

But see how the three texts differs very much in words and phrasings? And how the context may change if it's done throughout the book? Finally, the third example:


The earliest labors of the Masoretes included standardizing division of the text into books, sections, paragraphs, verses, and clauses (probably in the chronological order here enumerated); the fixing of the orthography, pronunciation, and cantillation; the introduction or final adoption of the square characters with the five final letters (comp. Numbers and Numerals); some textual changes to guard against blasphemy and the like (though these changes may pre-date the Masoretes - see Tikkune Soferim); the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading.
.....
The assumed emendations are of four general types:

- Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g., the substitution of ("to bless") for ("to curse") in certain passages.

- Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton; e.g. substitution of "Elohim" for "YHVH" in some passages.

- Removal of application of the names of pagan gods, e.g. the change of the name "Ishbaal" to "Ishbosheth."

- Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at Jerusalem.


As you can see in the first example, they literally changed the word "to bless" by "to curse" in some passages! So now, as an example, instead of saying that God blessed mankind, it might say that God cursed mankind. See? And all the translations after that continued to follow the changes.
So nothing could have stopped the KJV from changing certain words and meanings, because it was already done in earlier versions. But now, it was a Freemason that changed the words and meanings of the Bible, the same Freemasons that wrote the Georgia



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by UNIT76
 



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..


For that, we will need someone that can A): find the closest Bibles possible to the originals Greek and Hebrew ones (which seems to be the Septuagint and the Masoretic), B): learn fluently Greek and Hebrew, C): take all the versions and compare it to the originals ones, and D): publish the results and telling people what has been changed. If one of you guys can find someone willing to do that, it would be great!
For now, it only seems like words and phrasings that changed, and certains meanings, like replacing "bless" by "curse".


fast forward this >> if "secret societies" just run everything then what are they even fighting against?


Thought. That has always been the elite's problem. The fact that its desired slaves can think and understand what is going on. Ever read "1984" by George Orwell? It is very depressing, but it's exactly what the elite society has tried to accomplish for centuries. Once you control how someone think, you control its behavior, and you finally control for real the population. That is what is still bugging the elite: the fact that people think and analyze.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 



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


I don't know how it is in Australia, but yes, in my country, all the churches quotes from the KJV.


Your source offers no evidence that Bacon had anything to do with the KJV.


There you go (and you will also see how the KJV was supposed the be the only Bible churches could read):


On 25 June 1607 Sir Francis Bacon was appointed Solicitor-General and Chief Advisor to the Crown. He had presented new ideas to the Government for the Reformation of the church and was officially instructed to commence restructuring the Bible. Research in the Records Office of the British Museum revealed that original documents still exist which refer to important proceedings associated with Sir Francis Bacon's involvement with the editing of both the Old and New Testaments They revealed that he personally selected and paid the revisers of the New Testament who completed their task.

The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time:
...he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the Prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version.

Regarding the months of editing work applied to the Bible by Bacon, his biographer, William T.Smedley, confirmed the extent of the editing:
It will eventually be proved that the whole structure of the Authorized Bible was Francis Bacon's. He was an ardent student not only of the Bible, but also of early manuscripts. St Augustine, St Jerome, and writers of theological works, were studied by him with industry.
At the completion of the editing, Sir Francis Bacon and King James I had a series of meetings to finalize editorial matters associated with the new Bible. It was at this time that King James ordered a "Dedication to the King" to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase "Appointed to be read in the Churches" to appear on the title page. This was an announcement clarifying that King James had personally given the church "Special Command" for this particular version of the Bible to be used in preference to the vast array of Greek and Latin Vulgate Bibles current at the time.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



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?


It depends to which Bible the "Bible as we know it today" refers to. The Greek/Hebrew originals? Or the KJV? The New American or New Jerusalem Bible?
Beside, we have to be careful with some "ancients texts" because one told Jesus's story "differentely from what the Bible taught", creating confusion in people's mind, and leading them away from Christianity. Funny coincidence that as soon these "texts" were discovered, 20 years later Christianity dropped in popularity, and New Age/Mother Nature (the Templars/Rosicrucian's religion) gained popularity, just like the elite wanted.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 



I am not an expert in "Free Masonry", but I don't believe there are any other secrets.


There is actually some reports that some Freemasonry/New Age groups believe in the Mother Goddess concept (such as the Mother Nature mentioned in the last law of the Guidestones). My bet is that they claim that we descend not from a God, but from a Goddess. Lilith, perhaps? She was (according to them) Adam's first wife. And later on, when God hated her, she became Satan's wife.... Do they want to claim that we comes from Lilith and not from Eve? That we in fact come from Lucifer, and not God?
Many of the new religious movement's ideology seem to suggest that.


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".


When I see their laws, I don't believe they are enlightened and the "good guys".... When I see the new religions springing out from New Age, I don't think it's for our good.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



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


Believe me, not only is it not a joke, we're really supposed to make these laws happen. They are right now doing researches on which genetic structure is the fittest to survive. With things like blue eyed people are less subjected to mental illness than brown or green eyed people. Mother Nature worship is already well under way, thanks to some radical environmentalists.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by divideandconquer
 


reply to post by charles1952
 




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


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.


But it's all from the Vulgate. It's not translated directly from the originals Greek/Hebrew Bibles, it's from the Vulgate, a modified translated one. What we need is one that has been translated directly from Greek to English, and by people with no Anti-RCC or Templar background. People who didn't have something to gain from.
edit on 15-6-2013 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



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.


They tell you that it doesn't differ, but in reality, does it really? Tehy told people that sea levels was rising; in reality, the sea level didn't changed since a decade. There's a difference between what someone tells you and what it is really. The KJV is the only Bible containing the Bible Code and Bacon's code, and the only one that can reveal the "truth" about Christianity. The elite that wants this "truth" to be spreaded will do anything to encourage people reading the KJV by saying that its directly from the originals. At the same time, when they want people to stay away from Christianity after reading what is written in the KJV, they'll want to keep it that way by saying it was the same in the originals.

Beside, I don't see how it cannot differ from the originals, when it says here:


The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time:
...he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the Prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version.

Regarding the months of editing work applied to the Bible by Bacon, his biographer, William T.Smedley, confirmed the extent of the editing:
It will eventually be proved that the whole structure of the Authorized Bible was Francis Bacon's.


He re-wrote the Bible in a Shakespearian style, which, I'm sure of it, differs from a Greek/Hebrew style. That means he must have modified some words and phrasings to match the Shakespearian "prose, rhythm, and music". Also, the KJV structure was Bacon's.
I don't see how it can match the originals Bibles perfectly, if already two major things have been changed.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 



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.


It was banned?! Interesting...
Let me see... Oh, but it was translated from the Vulgate Bible, which, as you can see in my precedent post to arpgme, is very different from the two Greek/Hebrew original Bible.
But thank you anyway, I always tried to find what was the Holy Bible compared to the KJV. I'll check to see if there's any differences in meanings and words, and I'll give the result in ATS if there's any.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 



For that, we will need someone that can A): find the closest Bibles possible to the originals Greek and Hebrew ones (which seems to be the Septuagint and the Masoretic), B): learn fluently Greek and Hebrew, C): take all the versions and compare it to the originals ones, and D): publish the results and telling people what has been changed. If one of you guys can find someone willing to do that, it would be great! For now, it only seems like words and phrasings that changed, and certains meanings, like replacing "bless" by "curse".

a long time ago i came across a series of recordings by a guy called Stuart Crane (proofs of conspiracy) he was an ardent defender of the faith and a bit of a blowhard (i think of foghorn leghorn when i think of him) but he really seems to know his stuff, it seems at first he was hoodwinked by elements within the birch society but he was honest enough to talk about all this, anyway i'm rambling but it's a very interesting story.. what i wanted to tell you about was a guy he continually referenced, a pastor "Conrad Jarroll" (who also has recordings available) ..he says Conrad trained himself to understand koine greek - this may be something worth looking into

yeah i've read 1984


thanks for the insights into the battle against "thought" ..i would have to agree with this, it could definitely be argued they wish to direct and control human thinking..

drop me a pm one day if you get some of Conrad's work?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 

Dear starheart,

I may be misunderstanding you, but the New American Bible is a Catholic Bible, translated from the original languages. It was completed within the last 50 years. Is that what you're looking for?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Why does anyone care what people do in the privacy of their own bed chambers? Is it the role of religion to control ALL aspects of our lives? Not mine sir.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Why must this conversation always come down to what we are doing with our genitalia? I see lots of morbidly obese people walking err waddling into church, why aren't they condemned for their gluttony or sloth?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by UNIT76
 



drop me a pm one day if you get some of Conrad's work?


Definitevely! Thanks for the info; I don't recognize the names, which must be a good sign. I'll check in my free time to see if they didn't published something about the Bible, and I'll get back to you on it. Thanks again!



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



I may be misunderstanding you, but the New American Bible is a Catholic Bible, translated from the original languages. It was completed within the last 50 years. Is that what you're looking for?


Yeah, or at least, I hope so. If it is, its Genesis 4:7 words and phrasings should follow the LXX and Masoretic's Genesis 4:7. I'll go check it out right now. I was kinda doubtful when I saw the name, because many Bibles unfaithful to the originals, such as the Wycliffe, were made in the US. But this one might be a good one, especially if it didn't got translated from the KJV or the Vulgates. Thanks! I'll give you news about what I find.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rhinoman77
 



Why must this conversation always come down to what we are doing with our genitalia?


Sorry, it was the only example that came in my mind when I was trying to say how intentional mistranslations of the Bible could change some meanings. Trust me, I would have chose something else to demonstrate if I would have had more example.
Sorry...


I see lots of morbidly obese people walking err waddling into church, why aren't they condemned for their gluttony or sloth?


Because it isn't considered as potentionally harmful to another being. In the originals Bibles, like a friend discussed with me, everything that was forbidden was things like stealing, lying, killing. Everything that could cause harm to another being. Gluttony and sloth aren't exactly harmful to someone else. Well, maybe to the eyes...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Well, it seems at least to be based on the Masoretic text, and not on the Vulgate. Here's the NAB's Genesis 4:7:


If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.


and this is the Masoretic's Genesis 4:7:


If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.


It's very closer, at least, to the originals than even the KJV or the Vulgate, which is a good thing.

Thank you very much for pointing it out to me! I'll continue to study it further, to see if there's any big difference between the NAB and the originals.

But for now, the NAB seems indeed a good English-version Bible to begin with. Thanks again!





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join