Hello,

I was reading a post the other day that raised questions in my mind. At the risk of appearing ignorant I decided to ask a few questions of those more versed in religious matter than I.

1. I've read most of the King James Version of the Bible, but really didn't question who King James was... Does anyone have any information concerning King James.?

2. Since the King James version of the Bible was written by King James what is the orignial Bible...? Stupid question I know, but I would like to know. After all he had to get his interpretation from something...

I have many other questions, but these are the two that I would like to start with. Thank you in advance for any information that you can give me..

Plato-Deep in thought concerning eternal life...

-- Plato (Okie_Rascal@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000

Answers

King James is the British king who authorized the Bible to be translated into the English language. Quite a bit of freedom for the people (at that time) in allowing them to read and make their own decisions as to what the Bible was saying, not dependent upon the priests' translations.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), February 26, 2000.

Try here:

ftp://uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/etext/gutenberg/etext99/ sokjv10.txt

This Project Guttenberg's etext of "The Greatest English Classic -- A Study of the King James Version of the Bible and its Influence on Life and Literature" by Cleland Boyd McAfee, published in 1912, I believe.

-- (K@J.V), February 26, 2000.

Plato -

An old teacher of mine used to say, "There's no such thing as a stupid question." What is stupid is pretending to know what you don't.

Deb did a good job with 1, I'll take a stab at 2. As Deb said, King James didn't write it, he authorized it. Even so, it wasn't written at that time, it was a translation. The original Old Testament was written by various writers in Hebrew; the original New Testament was written by various writers in Greek.

The task of translating the Bible into language people has existed throughout history. The Old Testament had been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) even before the New Testament was written. In I think the 4th century came a Latin translation, the Vulgate, because Latin had replaced Greek as the spoken language of the Roman world. Later, as Latin fell into disuse, there was some controversy over whether new translations were needed. Luther's translation into German was a major milestone in putting the Bible into the hands of the common man, followed by a number of English translations culminating in the King James.

Today there is controversy over whether other translations should be used instead of the King James. My personal belief is that the style of English used in the KJV has become somewhat archaic and it is helpful to have Bibles available in contemporary English. Others feel that the King James expresses the meaning of the original better than any modern English translation. In any event, ANY English Bible is a translation; the original was written in Hebrew and Greek.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), February 26, 2000.

Their the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The first books of the Old were written by
the Levites. These were the head priests of
the Hebrews. This was written in Hebrew. It
suffered from much alteration and abuse. An
early version kept secure by the Essenes has
been found by the Dead Sea. For 50 years it has
been kept in secret by a group that is charge of
the translation. They refuse to allow it to
become public. The New was written many years
after the death of Jesus. There is controversy
over who the real authors were. This book was
written in Aramaic, a language of the Middle East
from about 300 BC to 600 AD.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 26, 2000.

When I was 10 or 11, I was given a Bible, the King James version.

When I went to college and took some religion courses, we were required to use The Oxford Annotated Bible, translated from the original languages. After that, I never used the King James version again.

For one thing, the Oxford is easier to read. And second, there are footnotes that explain things that need to be explained. I bought the Oxford Bible that included The Apocrypha, although this was not a class requirement. I just thought it would be interesting reading, and it was.

But for really interesting reading, read The Earth Chronicles series by Zecharia Sitchin. It is written by a scholar who has studied thousands of the ancient clay tablets. He does not refute, nor disparage the Bible at all; he just explains it from the archaeological discoveries, and the ancient tablets, texts and artifacts that are the records of that period of time. In the books, he has hundreds of drawings taken from the texts.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), February 26, 2000.

Markus,

Thanks for the compliment! I'm no way an expert, just passing on the little that I know. :-)

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), February 26, 2000.

The bible is a collection of mostly very ancient folk tales, philosophy, poetry, and law. Some parts are very good, useful, and even entertaining. Some parts are very bad, of dubious utility, or, at best, pointless. Throughout, there is great deal of contradiction and confusion, requiring "expert interpretation".

The New Testament is a codification of myths, portraying a non- historical figure that is a composite of an amalgamation of assorted "prophets" and "messiahs" predating the common era by thousands of years. It contains many references to a nature-based form of pagan "sun" worship. The overlap of the characterizations, acts, powers, acquaintances, and teachings among Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, and many others, if one ever bothered to investigate, is overwhelming.

This collection of religious texts has been edited, over and over, by various not disinterested parties for a couple of thousand years. To achieve the aims of an established and expanding church hierarchy, whole Books have been added and dropped, passages have been reworked, and key words have been changed, omitted, and added. In other words, the tale grew in the telling. The various Bible "versions" (and the various religions for that matter) are a delightful means of segregation and confusion for clerics the world over.

A "god" may have created this universe (and I, for one, would like to believe that one did), but men created religion and its all its texts. And men have been using these texts and their accompanying ready-to-wear ideologies as a means of social control for a long, long time.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 26, 2000.

Plato,

King James upset the world with his ordering of a Bible for the common man. Go back into history books and remember when the time preceding the publishing of Martin Luthers German Bible and the King James Bible (also known as the AV1611) was called the dark ages.

Nearly all of Europe was under control of the Catholic church. Masses were held in Latin and the common man was not permitted to have a copy of the Book. Blind, dumb, and ignorant were the best way to control people and countries. Those caught translating the bible lost their lives. The book that describes the persecution of the early church best is Foxes Book of Martyrs. It is also banned by all public libraries.

Martin Luther shook the world by translating the Bible into German. Shortly thereafter King James assembled the best scholars of the day and ordered that a Bible be translated into the English language. The resulting book is still the absolute benchmark of Bibles and the most loved (and hated) book of all history.

I must warn you that you have stepped into the hornets nest of Bible translations. Perhaps I can clarify a bit. The King James Bible as well as Martin Luthers Bible were translated from the Greek Texus Receptus, or Received Text for the New Testament and out of Hebrew manuscripts for the Old Testament. Those were the only Bibles outside of the Catholic bible until around 1880 when the Revised Version came out. It was based on a new translation made by two fellows known as Westcott and Hort. They got hold of copies of the corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus and Siniaticus from a monastery and set out to produce an entirely new Greek new testament. These guys were wicked to the core and their work became the basis of all, yes all, new bibles. The big buzzword they use is the original languages even though they have never seen them. The following belief is held by all new version folks: That God, somewhere perfected the bible in the original languages but those were lost. Therefore, scholars are the absolute authority on the Bible. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. You must go to the Greek and Hebrew to better understand the Bible. This is laughable, as there are hundreds of greek translations. There are 27 versions of Nestles alone.

In 1901 the American Standard Version came out and made inroads into American churches. Since then, there are over 200 versions all based on the Wescott and Hort text. The most popular is the NIV, or new international version. This was based on Nestles 26th version of the Greek New Testament, which is also based on Wescott and Horts translation. This perverted bible (NIV) deletes over 96000 words and removes the name Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ over 200 times in the New Testament alone. It also says that Jesus was a fallen angel (Isa 14:12 and Rev 22:16) The NIV is revised every 5 years or so. As a result, you get 20 people at a Bible study and youve got 10 different versions, which dont say the same thing. Satan is the author of confusion. The first thing Satan asked was Yea, hath God said? Did God really say that?

The core of the battle is the authority of the Word of God verses the intelligence of man. Did God preserve His Word as promised in Psalms 12:6-7 or did he not? This has been a heated debate throughout history.

Im an unashamed Bible Believer and praise God a saved sinner. God has been so merciful to me in spite of my wicked life. Jesus shed His blood for my sins. I'll never get over that.

I believe the King James Bible is inspired and without error. I believe it is Gods final authority here on earth. It was written at a time when the English language was at its peak. It is easy to memorize, as it has a rhyme and meter. It has changed more lives than any book on earth. To learn more about Bible translation go to biblebelievers.com. Do not be surprised about the flaming posts that follow.

-- trafficjam (road@construction.ahead), February 26, 2000.

Spider,

The NT was written in Greek. Jesus
spoke Aramaic, and it was the
language of the region, but my concordance
shows the language of the Bible to be Greek. That's also why Greek is required
in Divinity schools.

-- rocky (rknolls@no.cpam), February 26, 2000.

-- (4@5.6), February 26, 2000.

Sorry, traffic jam, you don't clarify when you answer a question with uninformed opinion.

The translators of the KJV were no better nor no worse than the translators of the NIV or other versions. The writers were inspired by God, nothing was said about translators.

When the Bible is held to be inerrent, it is held so in the original language. To claim inerrency for the translators of the KJV is beyond the pale of rational discussion, especially as that version has as many or more recognized errors than the more modern translations.

You could, of course avoid stepping into discussion like this on this forum by answering in a manner than is calculated to inform, rather than inflame.

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), February 26, 2000.

trafficjam,

Why do you call Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus corrupt? I understand that those codices were far more ancient than any of the manuscripts used in the KJV, and for that reason assumed to be more authentic and less susceptible to corruption.

Further, there were older english versions (and of course other versions)than the KJV; why do you think the KJV is the only one that is without error?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

PLATO:

As stated above, King James authorized the KJV. Interesting bit of translation I did back in '80, when I converted from apostate Jewish (never cracked the Bible in over 50 years) to Christian. In WWII I was always bothered by the C.O.s (Conscientous Objectors) who used "Thou shalt not kill." as their ticket to avoid combat, so I got out my Concordance and checked the Hebrew in the O.T., and the Greek (koine) in the N.T. What did I find? Lo! -- the word for 'kill' in both ancient languages is nowhere to be found in that Commandment. Instead the word used in that verse, in both O.T. and N.T., is murder!

The more I reflected on the difference between "Thou shalt not kill." and "Thou shalt not murder." the more the light bulbs went off in my noggin. Not only was it OK for me carry a loaded M1 carbine in WWII, it was OK to support capital punishment, and OK for me to precipitate 'acute lead poisoning' in a criminal attempting to precipitately end my life. Wow!

Next on my sleuthing agenda was to figure out why in God's name (no slip of the tongue that) did the army of ancient language and Biblical scholars whom the King reportedly summoned for the translation, allow themselves such an egregious error?

I had no break in the case until one day a friend put in my hands a biography of King James' life. It was written by an excellent writer (my Alzheimer's causes a memory lapse -- can't think of his name now) who was a conservative Christian. Among the things I learned (apart from the fact that he was rabidly prosmiscuous in his sexual life) was that James' reign marked one of the most dangerous, chaotic, and mismanaged eras in British political history. Finally, the citizens of both England and Scotland were close to rebellion, ready to take up arms against His Majesty. I forgot the details of how it was avoided but it was.

OK, here's "Inspector Clusst Schenker's" theory. James, in an attempt to quell the rumbling masses pulled out all the stops, including having his translators mistranslate 'murder' into 'kill,' thereby calling into service that powerful human emotion, guilt to save the Kingdom. How could any righteous Christian violate one of God's 10 commandments, sent down to Moses to proclaim for all time --- by participating in an armed rebellion against the throne?! We'll never know if this is what happened but it certainly makes a neat package.

Of course that set me off checking the translation of other words and passages in the Bible. What an education. But all that's for another day.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 26, 2000.

The "message of the Bible is without error... certainly there will always be grammatical errors and translatory errors, but the interpretation by the Holy Spirit it is always the same message....one version can read entirely different from another, but by the Holy Spirit, the reader is given the exact same message.

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 26, 2000.

rocky,
Jesus and his contemporaries spoke Aramaic.
The apostles wrote in Aramaic. It was
translated into Greek later.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 26, 2000.

Spider,

Alexander the Great brought not only Greek civilization, but Greek government to the region hundreds of years before Christ's birth. *All* Roman government in the entire Eastern Mediterranean continued to be conducted in Greek after they took over from the Greek dynasties. Greek then continued to be the language of official business in the entire region for *six more centuries* [until the Moslems took over].

After hundreds of years of Greek being the language of the ruling class, a large number of 'middle class' merchants and professional aquired the language for various reasons as well. Archeological evidence seems to indicate that in some limited areas, and at some times in Palestine Greek was the predominate language.

St. Paul was an educated Roman citizen. Class requirements would have dictated a fluency in Greek and some knowledge of Greek literature.

As Paul is the author of much of the N.T., and that he was writing to Greek or Greek speaking churches, that means at least part was composed in Greek.

The Gospel of John clearly reveals its original authorship in Greek. So do the others, but this is clearest in John's.

Almost all Greek and New Testament Scholars agree that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Spider,

You are correct, though, in as much as Aramaic was the language that Jesus spoke and the languge of 'the masses'.

But Greek literacy was not uncommon, and a good reading of the N.T. shows that the early Christian movement was very largely centered in the 'middle class' not the impoverished. [Jesus: son of carpenter, Peter and Andrew: owned fishing boat and employed a few men; etc, etc....]

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Whoops! I meant that Greek literacy was not *very* uncommon.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

trafficjam,

You are underinformed on the history of Biblical texts and translations. While you appear to be an expert on what you have been taught, what you have been taught is, to some degree, propaganda. Seek out some other perspectives on this issue and you'll be rewarded with a fuller and clearer understanding.

The history of the Bible is rich and complex. The KJV does have its virtues, but it is not God Himself. Don't worship it.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Plato,

I like your name. Probably the best translation that I can recommend is an Interlinear Bible. Then you can see the Greek [and the English, side by side] for yourself. A decent lexicon is a real pleasure as well.

Those of us who study the Bible deeply often have about a dozen translations in addition to the Greek text(s). Usually each has some unique strength to recommend it.

The amount of agreement among translations and texts is uncanny. Still, on occasion, minute differences can be crucial to the deep understanding of some points.

The on-line Blue Letter Bible is excellent if you use the text tools. I'll send that to your e-address.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Some books of the OT are in Aramaic (the official language of the Persian Empire), but most is in Hebrew. The gospel of Christ was taught in Greek outside Palestine, as every educated person in the Roman Empire spoke Greek and the Romans Empire encompassed Greece. The name of Greece is mentioned in several books of the OT by the Hebrew name Javan (for those into trivia).

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), February 26, 2000.

The man designated as James in then new testament was really named Ya'acov which translates to Jacob,the same name used in the old testament.The translators apparently did a little apple polishing by using the name of the king who was paying the bills. It seems odd to me that we pray in the name of the Savior and then call Him by the wrong name. In His entire life on this earth He was never called Jesus Christ. His name was, and is, Yeshua Ha Meshiach.

-- dontknow (cantknow@it.all), February 26, 2000.

To the one above who said that the Bible was a collection of facts, fancy, and folktales:

That's true of Shakespeare and Plato. But that didn't stop them from weaving all those things into a brilliant and enlightening wholes. Just because *you* can't see the whole [in your intellectual youth] doesn't mean that it isn't there. Study on.

But the Bible isn't merely the creation of human genius. In it God Himself writes history itself. I'm sorry that you are missing the powerful *and sublime* nature of this greatest of all great works. Come back to it every few years. Eventually you might find that, over time, life has made more sensitive the 'eyes of your heart'. Then the dawning awareness of the profound poetry layered within this Work will begin to enliven your more mature years.

Take heart. These things take time. Aristotle says that one's *intellectual* 'peak age' is 49. Why? Because as with all profundities of life, great Works take the maturity (and study) of decades to fully savor. That is what *maturity* [wisdom], is for.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Plato,

Your e-mail address isn't working for me. Here's the url of the Blue Letter Bible. If you don't already have this, you'll love it.

www.khouse.org/blueletter/index.html

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

tim,

Been there, done that, but thanks anyway.

I would also wish to encourage you to discover the truths I have found and, hopefully, as your mind "matures", you will attain that success.

People believe what they've been taught, even moreso what they've been taught at a very early age. It takes an extreme effort to seek, recognize, and accept evidence that is contrary to one's "teaching", but a few are able to eventually achieve that goal. Others are lucky enough to never have been conditioned to accept the myth, fantasy, and manipulation in the first place.

Good luck.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 26, 2000.

Episcopalian bias here, no doubt, but IMHO the most magnificent written language in the history of the world.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 26, 2000.

Hello All,

I wanted to thank you all for the wonderful replies to my questions! I've spent the better part of the day following links and reading the information that was so graciously provided. I see now that the answers to my questions bring more questions and I'm officially on a quest for enlightenment... I would appreciate your prayers as I make my journey.. Thank you once again.

Plato

-- Plato (Okie_Rascal@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Nathan,

I was raised without faith. Sad experience ultimately led, me to contemplate the things that I now do.

As for you: I'm glad that you have matured to the point where you feel strong enough to question your childhood.

But don't mistake those great years of intellectual exploration and rebellion for full intellectual maturity. When you can see, and experience, deep things fully and intimately you will know both why things are the way they are, and how to help them go the way they must go.

If you mistake the potent, powerful, deeply reflected faith of the mature for the tentative, weak, unconsidered faith of a child, then you, in your spiritual adolescence, just don't know very many spiritual adults.

E-mail me if you dare. *I* enjoy, not reject, your intellectual freedom. If nothing else, you'll enjoy wrestling with someone who is a lot more sophisticated than you might first assume.

Don't be so quick to condemn me the stereotypic category of 'fool' until you've given me a good test drive. You never know.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 27, 2000.

Doc Schenker,you are absolutely right about king james.He even wrote his own version of the bible!Not a very good or correct version.The best version I have found is the Sacred Name BIBLE.It does list the commandment as "Thou shall not murder".It was based on the Rotherdam BIBLE.

-- just a thought (tigerpm@netscape.com), February 27, 2000.

Traffic Jam, you got it brother. THANKS!!!

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 27, 2000.

TJ, I also suggest you get out and stay out of this topic. Glad to see though what I hope is a fellow traveller. But, I got ya beat as far as being a sinner. Hehe.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 27, 2000.

Traficjam is not perfect. traficjam is trying. traficjam is good.

-- Bruce (brubatty@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

Dr. Schenker -- also "baptizo" ("to dip") transliterated (instead of translated) into "baptize", to cloak the fact that the Anglican practice of sprinkling was not biblical.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 27, 2000.

Ummm..Bruce did I say TJ was perfect? I am sure he is as slimy as I am. But, being imperfect don't mean you ain't right. And he is dead on in his defense of the HOLY BIBLE.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 27, 2000.

let's just say i am trying to water my garden and someone gives me a rusty pail full of holes to do the task. how well am i going to be able to carry water? can i actually water anything or will i be spilling most of it on the way? how well is my garden going to grow with the amount of water i am able to get to it? how effective or how discouraged will i become with this useless pail?

i was married to a liberal theologian for 12 years. during that time my faith DIED. i was constantly taught during this time that the bible was a nice book but basically a pack of myths and lies and that most of the essential elements of jesus' life were fables.

once we divorced, i discovered christian churches and christian radio. it was then that god showed me how IMPOTENT liberal theology is -- just like carrying water in a rusty pail. and i began to be exposed to "the other side of the story".

over the past ten years, i have read, listened, and learned. i now understand what AN INCREDIBLY AMAZING BOOK THE BIBLE IS and how incredible and beautiful GOD is. my life and my relationships have been transformed. this version of faith is NOT IMPOTENT. it is alive and it works.

the facts about the bible are there. i could never even begin to touch on them but i would urge anyone who buys into all these lies regarding the bible to do a bit of research yourself. not with the refuters but with the believers (otherwise it is sort of like learning to use Windows from a Linux vendor?; or learning about freedom from a Communist?). also, you can't read just parts of the bible willy-nilly. if you are serious about it, you need to understand the context and circumstances under which it was written.

Here are a few links that are user friendly (I am sorry I don't know how to embed the link):

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html (creation scientists)

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/index.html (ron rhodes: a user friendly apologist)

http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/abrhome.html (archaeologists)

FEW POINTS FROM THESE SOURCES I will try to summarize for you that don't want to read but are truly open to hearing (I am not a theologian/apologist; just an amateur):

-Bible is 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over 2000 years. These writers primarily did not know one another, lived hundreds of miles apart, and never imagined their writing would become part of a large collection like this. In its entirety--the bible has remarkable structure, mathematical patterns, intricacy, and symmetry. There is a single theme to each book (the creation and redemption of all things through Christ).

-Bible writers themselves stated over 3000 times that they were "transmitting the very Word of God". Jesus himself verified scripture's accuracy and truth many times.

-Archaeologists used to scoff at the bible because there were customs, places, names, and events named in it that had not yet been "discovered". Now, thousands of finds later, many look to it as a guide in unearthing ancient civilizations. Example: A recent find of the REAL Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia was credited solely to following the bible (not the place the pope visited but I can point you to a site that has video that shows an exact match of every detail given in scripture). I think it is incredible--but you are not going to hear about it in the press.

-The manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled when compared with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books (using the same criteria the secular world uses for any ancient book--the bible stands head and shoulders above every other source).

-Of the thousands of manuscripts, only 150,000 variants have been discovered. This seems like alot but 99 percent of them consist of a missing letter or word (pretty amazing when you consider these texts were handwritten). ONLY 50 of these variants have any significance at all but HAVE NO EFFECT ON DOCTRINE OR MORAL COMMANDMENTS.

-With regards to prophecy--there is no other book like it on earth. If you actually study our great "prophets" (non-biblical folks, such as Nostradamus, Dixon) you will see that their prophecies were generally non-specific, convoluted, and have a tremendous (95%) failure rate. There are thousands of prophecies in the bible--most are incredibly specific; many even specifying the exact TIME and PLACE when the prophecy would be fulfilled. Many were written thousands or hundreds of years apart and before the event. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at his first coming.

-The bible presented many facts of science, long before they were confirmed (and are still being confirmed). Such as: the roundness of the earth, infinite extent of the sidereal universe, law of conservation of mass and energy, hydrologic cycle, law of increasing entropy, atmospheric circulation, importance of blood in life processes, dietary laws, and many others.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

oh, if you are an amateur like myself and beginning your journey in reading the bible (I know i am going to get blasted by the hardliners), I would highly recommend the LIFE APPLICATION STUDY BIBLE in the New Living Translation. It is truly awesome in providing background, authorship info, a simple outline for each chapter so you can understand the structure and themes, plus some useful charts and tables that summarize important information or lessons. It has revolutionized my daily reading.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

Unveiling the truth has been, is, and will always be a perpetual struggle. Religious interpretation can be described as such. The underlying meaning of the Bible, regardless of translatory interpretation, should be faith. Faith in the greatness of God and faith in His beloved son, our Savior( whomever one chooses to call him ). When I truly need God, God is there for me. He has always answered my prayers. This is the enlightened truth which has been unveiled to me. For this truth I fully and completely understand, no matter what language conveyed to me. This all encompassing human spirituality, I believe, cannot possibly be defined/explained from mans perspective. "Seek and ye shall find."

-- NoJo (RSKeiper@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

tim
I would direct you to these sites that
cover the subject of the Aramaic bible.

Is The New Testament Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek?

By 331 B.C.E., there were Jews all over the Middle
East and Greek was the common spoken language on all
the trading routes. Greek was also the language spoken
in the Synagogues making it extremely difficult to
read the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures to Greek-speaking
people. This created a need to translate the
Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek much the same as we have
need to have it in English today.

Link

Jesus Christ spoke ancient Aramaic, the language
in which the first disciples and apostles preached
and the scribes recorded the New Testament. The
Scriptures have been preserved in the original,
sacred scribal language since the Apostolic Age.
I'm translating the original ancient Aramaic Bible
directly into English. Now you can read the original
and authentic Scriptures.

As I continue translating the Letters of Paul, it's
becoming clear how the distortions of the Bible were
accomplished by the early translators. With each
translation work, the message of Jesus Christ was
altered to fit the political situation of the times.
Since translation was necessary only for the non-Aramaic
speaking converts, I believe the Western churches
wanted to take over control of the church and they
needed to make the claim that the "Kingdom" was taken
away from the "Jews" and given to the "Gentiles."
Therefore, it was necessary to prove the claim that
the New Testament was written in Greek. This claim
opened up the gates for the distortion of the Bible.

ARAMAIC BIBLE

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 27, 2000.

Greetings in name of our Lord Jesus Christ to all be ye friend or foe!

Ticked a few of you off I see. That is good and exactly what I intended. The motive is simple. I want you to open your Bibles and study instead of blindly following some gutless whimp behind a pulpit who tells you to love and tolerate everything. Read the Book. Lets examine a few things. Rocky, you posted the following

The translators of the KJV were no better nor no worse than the translators of the NIV or other versions. -- rocky (rknolls@no.spam

One of the literary consultants to the NIV was Dr. Janet Mollencot, an Episcopal minister and lesbian. Im sure she read Lev 18:22 as she consulted the translators.

Answer the questions Rocky. Why is the name Lord, God, or Christ removed over 200 times in the New Testament. Why is the blood removed? Open your Bible and read Col 1:14. We have redemption through the blood of Christ. Compare I Sam 15:51 and II Sam 21:19. Who killed Goliath? Why does the NIV take the Son of God out of Daniel 3:25? Why is the name Lucifer removed in Isaiah 14:12? There are major doctrinal changes and lies in Ps 12:6-7, Lk 2:33, Acts 1:3, 2 Cor 2:17 to name but a few. There are complete omissions in Matt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26 and that is just the start.

WHY? The root text is completely different than the KJV. IT CAME FROM ALEXANDRIA. As for the originals you worship, produce them. Guys like you who are will not compare scripture probably got lace on their underwear. Get off your butt and open the book and start comparing verses.

Another wrote

trafficjam,

Why do you call Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus corrupt? I understand that those codices were far more ancient than any of the manuscripts used in the KJV, and for that reason assumed to be more authentic and less susceptible to corruption.

They are not more ancient. They contain the apocrypha, which was a perversion added by Origen. They were written on goat skin (man) and lamb skin. Think about that a bit. If you want a superb verse by verse comparison, check out the book New Age Bible versions by Gail Riplinger. It is an exhaustive study analyzing the verses as well as the translators and their motives. Heres another thing to chew on. The KJV has a king's copyright. Anyone can print a version. Not so with the other ones. One of the primary motives of the new versions is profit. Why are there over 200 new versions which all claim to be easier to understand than the AV?

The final answer is authority. Did God preserve his word where we could read it or did He lie? Some of you get your panties in a bunch and spit and sputter about how my post was meant to incite. The Bible is the most controversial and divisive book in the world. This "get along with everyone" crap is a bunch of new age psychobabble. I'll stand by the Book of Books.

-- trafficjam (theAV@roars.above therest), February 27, 2000.

Two questions for KJV-only apologists:

1. What if someone doesn't speak English (modern or archaic)? Do they have to learn English, or is it okay to translate a Bible for them into the language they already speak?

2. If making a translation is okay, then what is the starting manuscript that must be used to make such a translation? The source manuscripts for the KJV? Or does it have to be the English KJV?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 27, 2000.

This is becoming quite an interesting thread.

Spider,

Dr. Lamsa and the Aramaic Onlyian are not, as far as I can tell, a completely objecive bunch. They have some rather odd beliefs regarding various Christian doctrines. I won't go into any of that unless drawn there.

But just to address their contention that the Bible's *only* reliable versions are the ones preserved in the various 'Eastern Rite' [Syriac] Churches: Having extensively looked into the scholarship on the issue from *both* sides, the Lamsa-ians seem to have a significantly weaker case. That is not to say that they don't have some value; in the very least they are drawing attention to Christianity's rich Aramaic/Syric traditions. And to a wonderfully valuable version of the Bible.

But I find their contention that *only* **their** Bible is correct or able to furnish the proper insight into Christian faith to be silly. Just as I find the KJV a great, but not exclusively great Bible.

If you can show me that you've considered the other side of the issue [rather then post exerpts from the Lamsa-ians], I'd find it much easier to take ones 'pro-Aramaic' position in a more serious manner.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

Spider, I'm not aware of Greek being the language of the Palestinian synagogues. Where did you get that? I am aware that it was the language of the diaspora of the Eastern Mediterranean, but not in Palestine itself. In fact, Aramaic, and 'classical' Hebrew was that language. Jesus may very well have spoke all three [Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek] to some degree. Paul must have, so would have a number of disciples.

Allow me to make a theological arguement for a moment. Syriac [Armenian] is almost a dead language. And the Eastern world has been like a relatively dry and barren field for the Gospel.

On the other hand, the Mediterranean World, then Europe, then America have blossomed spectacularly with His Word.

Just as He intended they would.

Don't you trust God to have given us a reliable text? How could we in the West have become the most powerful and successful people in the history of the world without true Scripture?

Would God deliberately *hide* His 'one true Bible' in some obscure local and language for all this time?

If the Eastern Rite churches have the 'correct' Bible, then what fruit do they have to show for it? They've had *no growth* for the last 1500 years! Is that the power of the Gospel?

God does not mislead the sincere. Trust in Him. Putting too much faith in the Lamsa-ites, is a false worship.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

Traffic Jam:

You would be wiser to turn your thunder towards Hollywood rather than your brothers and sisters in Christ.

By your willingness to cast stones so quickly, the judging of the shortcomings of 'other' translations before admitting any of your own, you risk alienating yourself from the 'Body'.

If you desire to create division between and among yourself and other Christians, then you are not of Christ, you are of the Enemy.

Its very important to spend much time in humble and thoughtful consideration of God's Word. That is what protects us from becoming merely one of our Enemy's divisive tools.

In other words, if we spend more time deeply reading our Bible, we'd spend less time wanting to fight over it.

Remember, HE is the Sovereign Judge of what is good and what is evil. In comparison we are *all* hopelessly foolish. Leave this one to Him to sort out.

If we spend our time loving Him, we'll find we just don't feel like being such a thorn in the 'side' any more. Put down that sword, Peter! Let God destroy the perverse and the wicked. Your job is to spread the Gospel of Love and Light! Feed the lost sheeple!!! They are starving for Him!!

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

...the enemy... Isn't that special?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 28, 2000.

Trafficjam,

First, when you mentioned Gail Riplingers book, to be fair to the readers you should also have mentioned James Whites book, The King James Only Controversy. This book points out the many out-of- context and incorrect quotes Gail Riplinger employed; there are lots of specific verse-by-verse comparisons. Im not saying whos right  Im just indicating that if you were aware of this book (and as a KJ onlyist you should have been) you could have mentioned it so that readers could obtain both and judge for themselves.

Second, youre aware that the KJV was taken from the Textus Receptus. As you probably know, Erasmus was the principal compiler of it.

Heres just an example of how he did it:

For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are so mixed up as to be almost indistinguishable, Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript  but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.

(from "The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce M. Metzger)

Also, are you aware of the story behind the spurious passage in the KJV 1 John 5:7 which is omitted from all modern versions? Let me know if youd like details.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

Dancr,

Christians believe that it is not against flesh and blood that they war, but against the force of Evil itself. In Hebrew he is called 'the Satan' [English: the Enemy].

Do you prefer your wars to be against humanity?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

Plato, I am so glad that you, too, are on the quest! And I am delighted that you have asked us to pray for your journey towards the Lord. I will add you to my prayers. That Light changed my life, and it never fails to do so for true seekers.

I am also happy that so many brothers and sisters have replied so thoroughly to your question. I am one of those persons who loves to study the Word, and I use six favorite translations, plus often look into a couple of more "interpretive" texts (i.e., The Living Bible, The Message.) My favorite versions are the New International Bible and the New American Standard Version, and the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible recommended by my professor at Trinity International University. May you be richly blessed as you enter the wonderous Word of God.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), February 28, 2000.