The REAL Names of the Bible

reply to post by Knives4eyes

The only reason why I suspect god to actually be represented by a woman is from studying an ancient vase that had a picture of a woman handcrafting humanity by combining "man with primate".

Got a link to that? I'd love to see it.

On topic: Whether or not it's right or wrong to translate names in an ancient text is a subjective debate at best. The original names are easily found, by anyone who wants to look into them, and their meanings. Which I highly recommend, as well looking into the meanings of many of the original words used in the text. But I catch your drift.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
From a documentary point of view, it was Ioannes, since that is what is recorded in the Greek New Testament, and we have no earlier evidence of his existence. If he was an actual person, he would have called himself Yohanan.

That was also the name (Ioannes) i ended up with, but wastn sure how much further back i could get.
Very interesting.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
To answer your second question, would Christianity have been as successful if its founder had what would have been considered an unpronounceable foreign woman's name? Probably not. But neither would any other Yeshua in the Hellenic world.

That was also my initial thought that it there would have been massive difficulties throughout the timeline of history and up to present time if there have not been any changes is the names.
I am aware of that every religion have undertaken large changes, some of them on purpose to make it more convenient, and others out af natural causes as you mention.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
That's not a disinformation conspiracy among Hellenic Jews--that's simply how people handled their names in a multilingual society. When you speak Hebrew or Aramaic or some other provincial tongue, and everyone in power speaks Greek, you figure out a way to introduce yourself in Greek. And then Greek becomes the provincial tongue and everyone's speaking Latin, or English, or some other language, and your descendants figure out how to introduce you in the new language. If people are still talking about you in two thousand years, you might not recogize your name--but it would still be your name.

That actually make alot of sense that the names was molded by different timeperiods in history.
Thank you for sharing the information

Originally posted by Klassified
On topic: Whether or not it's right or wrong to translate names in an ancient text is a subjective debate at best. The original names are easily found, by anyone who wants to look into them, and their meanings. Which I highly recommend, as well looking into the meanings of many of the original words used in the text. But I catch your drift.

I have actually researched a little, not as much as i could have, as i had my doubts that i would ever get the real answers and thought there must be some enlightened people here on ATS who could deliever a more correct answer than i would ever be able to find myself

reply to post by Klassified


Apparently I was incorrect, the human hybrid was created by not 1 but 2 men than handed to a woman who appears to be the lead researcher.


Enki and Ningishzidda created Adamu a hybrid human creation while Ninmah appears to take credit.






Here is one egyptian version.



The story of Lucifer from Jehovah's witnesses perspective is rather fascinating to me, apparently a human test subject was granted the title of honorary "angel" because he was deemed smarter than the rest. He was privy to special knowledge and treatment by his creators.

One day his creators create a more refined human that they take pride in....he got very jealous and was determined to undermine and destroy this new type of human.


This will just lead to more questions, more curiousity, without understanding knowledge can become dangerous.

Lucifer be an example of the disinformation the OP was thinking about. In the Bible, there is no angelic being called Lucifer. There was a foreign king who, in a polemic, was compared to the daystar (the planet Venus) as someone who aspires to divinity but ultimately dies, as the daystar disappears when the sun rises. Mystical Jewish literature connected the daystar with Satan, but that connection was never made in the canonical literature as far as I know. In the Septuagint, the Greek name for the daystar was used, Heosphoros. That was translated literally into the Latin Lucifer. In time, it lots its original significance, and the Lucifer=Satan connection was cemented. Throw in the Revelation story about a third of the stars falling, fiddle with the timeline, and you have an entire angelic rebellion. Thus grew up the mythology of Satan as a fallen angel. Even though Satan clearly has access to Heaven (Job), and the daystar does not, they are the same entity in most people's minds. Milton's poem was just that good, I guess.

I would say, in this case, translations that continue to use the Latin word "Lucifer" are misleading the reader, in order to support a tradition that is not supported by the text. This is actually fairly common--dubious passages or translations are kept in the body of the text out of a sense of tradition, and the correct interpretation is footnoted or ignored. Have you heard "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" It's in the wrong place in the Bible, and may not be Biblical at all. The Trinity? The phrase "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is in there, and belief in the Trinity is ancient, but the only verse that says they are actually a Triune God was a marginal note that someone accidentally copied into the text. Snake handling? That was tacked on to the end of Mark after someone lost the last page. What the Hell? There isn't one, there's just a grave, a valley, and an allegorical lake of fire. In the Old Testament, "Lord" is almost always the wrong word, and so is "God," sometimes. They don't want you to know that one person was running around worshipping Shaddai while another person was running around worshipping Yahweh (even though a major plot point in Exodus is the revelation that Shaddai and Yahweh are one and the same--early Unitarian Universalism, in a way).

Other than maybe the hell thing, I wouldn't say any of these originated as disinformation. There's a reasonable explanation for each one, usually having to do with translation issues and access to texts. They continue because people are accustomed to them. People like the idea that their religious forebears were always monotheists, that evildoers will be punished, etc. When Church elites try to change comfortable old ideas, the people push back.

reply to post by Knives4eyes

I thought this might have been what you were referring to, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.

reply to post by Minus


The closest name that John the Baptist was called, since he was a hebrew, was Yahuhannan the immerser. Pronounced Yahoo kahnan. Check it up on strong's concordance. They removed the yahu and replaced it with yeho, massoretic vowel pointing did this. That was to removed part of the sacred name. Big coverup, and big conspiracy started way back when Yisra'al(Israel) was in babylon captivity.

Starts in greek text
www.blueletterbible.org...

Then refers you to Hebrew origin
www.blueletterbible.org...

Strong's isn't a perfect translation either but there is ways to get the original pronunciations by doing some research.

reply to post by Minus


The reason for this is in the different translations of the bible during the centuries, in history is been found that the language of the first writers goes earlier than the known Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, the ancient use different languages all related to the Semitic, like Moabite and Akkadian this were all part of the Semitic language, before the more established Hebrews it was not really and alphabet but the stories in the bible were passed by the means of oral accounts.

That is why we may never know the original names of the actual ancient people of the first testament until the Hebrews alphabet came to be, even the word Hebrew in ancient was know as Habirus.

Sadly because the original old testament text were destroyed most of what we know now are just accounts pass over and written by later generations.

How was the Bible Written?

www.truthnet.org...

I will not be off the truth if I say that the modern bible we have today is a very redacted version of what the original accounts were.

reply to post by Knives4eyes


LOL that's not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or teach at all, I have no idea where you got that from. I should know I grew up as one and attended meetings until into adulthood. They teach that Lucifer or Satan was a rebellious angel who basically thought God was a crappy boss and convinced 1/3 of the other angels to 'quit' and started his own corporation. You get the drift.

I know this because I remember sitting through endless meetings pondering how great heaven actually is if 1/3 of the angels sided with the Devil. Maybe the dental sucked?

Originally posted by Murgatroid
God's word is TRUTH...

Every single one.

God takes His word VERY seriously.

You can ignore it but it WILL cost you.

Is that a threat?

That has always been my favorite way to convert people is to threaten them.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

I assume that as John, Jean, Johannes, Giovanni etc are all the same name in different languages, that John the Baptist's name was the Aramaic equivalent of John and has simply been translated accordingly?

Yes its the same person. but is it correct to translate names? of course the words themselves are translated, but person names, city names and country names - should they be translated at all?

so if one was to translate the bible into italian you dont agree that the name John should also be translated to the italian word for John which is Giovanni...?

to me thats just like saying... "lets translate the bible into greek but hey.. lets keep any word starting with the letter 'S' in English"

As an aside, the Latin for John would be Ioannes - Closer to Johanne than John... but you can see the connections. The important part is that each successive language carried its own grammatical rules and the spelling adapted to fit those evolving rules - but the pronunciation has remained essentially the same.

The meat and potatoes aspect of my post:

Even if a person rose to absolute power ( as did Constantine over the Western world so long ago ) and decided that every Bible, henceforth, would change every mention of Jesus or Christ to "Ted, that one dude from Ohio" - it would not alter the underlying message a single iota. While there are schools of thought that attribute greater meaning to specific names and even the placement of every single letter in the entire Bible, the "top layer" of meaning remains the same.

It's spirituality, a deeply personal and subjective choice that we each must make. Allowing that choice to be bogged down in minutia and over things like linguistic analysis seems kind of tragic to me. The labels are irrelevant to the process.

Originally posted by Miracula
Is that a threat?

No.

It's called the TRUTH.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by Miracula
Is that a threat?

No.

It's called the TRUTH.

The purpose of this is not dumb trash on religious people - but out of curiousity
I hope there is some good suggestions out there

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

No problem with truth when it is delivered correctly.

For example, when I first became interested in Mormonism three clergy abusively rejected my questions about Mormonism.

Simple questions.

And here are the Mormons claiming there are only two churches, the church of Christ and the Church of the devil.

Do you think the manner of these three clergy played a part in me buying into Mormon theology? You bet.

And one of them even claimed that Mormonism was deceptive. Which claim I agree with, however their behavior was deceptive in manipulating me into Mormonism for 5 years. This is the reason I will never attend another church, be it Mormonism or otherwise.

Be careful that you are fighting the right fight.

And right about now, when the OP has respectfully requested information you are reminding me of these three professionally educated clergy.

So could someone please use the names used at the time, instead of translating it into our modern languages.

That would at least solve a bit of the issue here, won't it ?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

But then you would have problems pronouncing them.
That's the point.
Can you get your tongue round the Aramaic version of "Jesus"? Regularly?

Originally posted by Vamp333
so if one was to translate the bible into italian you dont agree that the name John should also be translated to the italian word for John which is Giovanni...?

I can understand that it is changed, if its a linguistic barrier to keep the original name - i just thought that names where more likely to stay the same than regular words thats normaly transated.
In comparison what is John Deere in italian? And the writer John Grisham? is both actually translated to Giovanni "something"? thats the ideology i was wondering about, if you get me.

Originally posted by Hefficide
It's spirituality, a deeply personal and subjective choice that we each must make. Allowing that choice to be bogged down in minutia and over things like linguistic analysis seems kind of tragic to me. The labels are irrelevant to the process.

Yes i agree thats its a personally choice and i respect your opinion.
I would like to emphasize that it was not to contradict peoples spiritual choices i any ways.
Im skeptic to that the changes is irrelevant though, however natural or premeditated it was

Originally posted by Minus
Hello members

I have for a long time wondered about the names in the bible, and how the church have decieved the population in the respective countries by changing bible names into something more suitable.

For eksample John the Baptist - wonderd if any people in the middle east ever was named john?
In france his name is Jean
In spain his name is Juan
In denmark his name is Johannes
In Italy his name is Giovanni

Anybody know what his REAL name actually was?

And this disinformation goes for many many names in the bible just so people better can relate to them or is there a better explanation to this?
Would it have changed anything for the succes of christianity if they kept the original names?

The purpose of this is not dumb trash on religious people - but out of curiousity
I hope there is some good suggestions out there

edit on 4-7-2013 by Minus because: corrected spelling

You could learn the hebrew language and translate the original text yourself to find the real names.

Any easier way would be to use Strong's concordance with a hebrew/greek lexicon and look up the names you want translated, actually transliterated since most names will not have an english counterpart.

After going through a few verses you will find that the catholic church in history most definitely pulled one over on us.