Original Bible translation

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by Michael Neumann, Apr 24, 2013.

  1. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    Here is a great site that parallels the original Hebrew to Latin translation of the bible to several other versions. If provides you a deeper meaning of the versus http://www.latinvulgate.com/
     
  2. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    Actually, the Vulgate is a mish-mash of sources. Some the Old Testament is from Hebrew (unknown manuscripts), some from Greek, some from Aramaic paraphrases of Hebrew. The web site may be a good way to learn Jerome's Latin, but its presentation of the King James as an "alternative semantic" is dishonest. The King James was not translated from the Vulgate. The King James was translated from the same or older sources as the Vulgate. There was no Latin step. Latin was not and has never been an original language of the Bible. The original languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    That being said, if you want a great site that parallels multiple translations, consult the following:

    http://studybible.info/
    http://bible.cc/

    http://interlinearbible.org/
     
  3. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    View attachment romanritual.pdf
    Bryan, thank you for making me look a little deeper. What I am interest in is writings that were not included in the King James version or in many of the translations. Here is a site that give you all this http://pathofyeshua.net/gospelsandtext.html

    The bible has been corrupted IMHO by man. Most especially seen here (supports my opinion) http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html and here (detracts a bit from my opinion but not enough to provide a counterpoint) http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm .

    Per Katherine Crawford of St. Olaf College, The Foundation of the Roman Imperial Cult, Roman rulers were considered between deity, sons of deity, or appointments of deity since the time of Augustus. Thus when the Counsel of Nicea was formed it was understood that if the Roman ruler was next to deity then Jesus MUST be a deity in order to ensure he was above all. In those days it was rather easy to be worshiped as a deity due to the illiterate nature of the populace, again see my attachment.

    I am attempting to gather all the original writings of the bible before a bunch or self involved power hungry men decided what people would be feed in order to make them easier to control. In no way am I doubting that there is a single creator, as numbers guys (LSSBB, CAPM) you and I both know that statistically it is much more likely that the creation theory is correct than some of the competing theories.

    From one of the threads on this site, a few PMs on my FB page, and watching The Rite http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/therite.php I have begun looking deeper into the Christian religion. Reading The Roman Ritual (also attached), then The Book of Ceremonial Magic by Arthur Edward Waite 1913 http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/bcm/index.htm, now The Lesser Key of Solomon http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/lks/ I am increasingly convinced that much of the nonsense contained within the texts are made to bring you into a hypnotic state. Anyone who has watched a stage hypnotist knows that people are quite easy to control in this state and their behavior is out of the ordinary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  4. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    Research Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion for some really eye opening info on the bible and religions threw out the world, and their similarities. Here are a few of my favorite thing explained...

    If the israelites were slaves in Egypt when Moses led them from there, where the hell did they get enough gold to make a golden calf to worship? And why a calf?

    If "lucifer" is the morning star, why does Jesus describe himself as "the bright and morning star"?

    If lucifer and Satan are the same person, why does Jesus tell Peter, " get the behind me Satan"?

    Many questions exist in the bible, but can not be answered except by following Gods words. "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.", "Come let us reason together."

    As for the Bible being corrupted by man, the troubles plaguing the Holy See, the Nag Hamadi library and the dead sea scrolls should be more then enough proof of that.
     
  5. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    I wouldn't rely too on Jordan Maxwell. He been thoroughly debunked. I do agree with you BEDickey that there is more than way to look at the bible. But remember the bible, mainly the Old Testament is mesh work of stories that at one point or another have been told before. For example the flood story and the epic of Gilgamesh are very very similar, and knowing the contact the ancient Israelites had with the Babylonians, it might be fair to say that maybe the flood is a rendition of the epic of Gilgamesh? JM2C
     
  6. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree about Jordan maxwell having been debunked, but to each there own. I will agree about the old testament being a mix and match of old stories though. Very well know stories commonly used by many God and Goddess at the time. Almost every story from the old testament and new can be found in another form in another religion from around the world, which begs another question, how did the same myths and legends spread to every side of the world in ancient times.

    When you find the common threads between each faith, the astro-theological underpinnings, it makes a lot more sense, and you understand and know the answers to the questions I posted above.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  7. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    Great conversation about an amazing book. It is interesting as we move forward in time more is discovered to support the validity of the Bible and Homers stories.

    - was interesting until it was debunked - http://www.world-mysteries.com/steven_dutch1.htm
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2013
  8. BEDickey

    BEDickey Premium Member

    138
    7
    38
    I agree. No matter what you believe, it's a great study of a great book.
     
  9. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    That is what I call "utter rubbish". Indeed, the web sites you cite make it quite clear that the exact opposite of what you claim was the reality. The Deific status of the Son was not invented at First Nicea. It was part and parcel of the doctrines of the Early Church. A group of ultra-monist speculators couldn't handle that and decided that Christ had to be a lesser creation. They were rejected at Nicea I. The Minutes of the Council make it plain that it was not cooked up as some kind of scheme, nor did it have any relationship to the status of the Emperor. Instead, it was a Jewish issue, not a Roman one. Yes, "mainstream" Judaism is very rigidly ultramonotheist, but modern "mainstram" Judaism wasn't the only form of Temple Judaism. So, cast the question honestly, as a controversy between Jewish sects, not as an attempt to gain political credibility within the Roman Empire. Of course, if your goal is to undermine Christian belief, you'll choose the Roman option.[/QUOTE]

    Except that isn't what happened. The lists of canon were compiled by individual holy men and later ratified by Councils. Absolutely none of the "rejected" texts are any more "liberating" than the Canonical texts, if one reads the canonical texts in context. The truth is already in Scripture.

    It's called "poetry" and "prosody". Not all poetry is in verse, and poetry and prosody overlap. The "hypnotic state" is part of the ecstatic experience, and the actual problem is what one does with the ecstatic experience, not the experience in and of itself.
     
  10. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    If the israelites were slaves in Egypt when Moses led them from there, where the hell did they get enough gold to make a golden calf to worship? And why a calf?[/QUOTE]

    First, the Bible tells us where they got the gold. Second, please quote specifically how large the golden calf was, using only Scripture. The movies like to portray it as gigantic, but what evidence is there for this? Why a calf? Apis bull of Egypt, a symbol of the Semitic god "El", bulls are commonly religious symbols.

    Because you intentionally misrepresent the use of "Lucifer" in Scripture. Satan was NEVER called "Lucifer" in Scripture. "How, o Lucifer, art thou fallen" is a reference to a human king who was called "morning star" by his flunkies. It was mocking him. Jesus is the true Lucifer, the true Light-Bearer.

    Scripture never says that Lucifer and Satan are the same. Therefore, the "if" is rubbish. Second, Peter was called "Satan" because peter was being adversarial.

    [/QUOTE]Many questions exist in the bible, but can not be answered except by following Gods words. "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.", "Come let us reason together."[/QUOTE]

    You intentionally deleted the most important sentence of that section: "Learn to do good: Seek justice. Reprove the ruthless. Defend the orphan. Plead for the widow." After all of that, THEN comes "reason together". Reason is secondary to acts.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls are far more pedestrian and mainstream than some make them out to be.
     
  11. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    Could you elaborate on what you mean. I have made a personal study of them for some time and even took some plane flights to make that study and I will admit that on the face of your statement I find it academically indefensible and sense, which I often do with you Brother Bryan, and underlying anger of some sorts or maybe distaste for what you believe is an attack of some sorts. Hard to tell with the written word. But in the other thread you have failed to provide a single piece of evidence for some of your more severe statements. I am willing to debate, but can you point me in the direction of understanding your standpoint on this particular area.

    Can you explain what you mean by mainstream? What is the historical evidence of this and which writings in particular do you find pedestrian?
     
  12. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0


    Thomas was just one of many excluded; IMHO it is because he pointed out that Jesus killed a few kids while learning to subdue his passions. In no way does this detract from Jesus, in fact after reading the text I see his account as more likely in congruence with the theory that Jesus was the Word in human form http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob08.htm You cannot truly know the pain/joy/love (which I will speak of later) of humans unless you experience it first hand and that was the entire point of Jesus' time on earth.

    Agreed, BUT, there is a rising morning star and a setting morning star...

    Here is what I am trying to reconcile. First, scientifically, what always has been and always will be, can neither be created nor destroyed? Now Biblically what always has been and always will be?

    Now, if you believe the Bible is valid --> A
    Then you must believe the Trinity is valid --> B
    If you believe in the Trinity then you must believe in the spiritual world --> C
    If you believe in the Bible, the Trinity and the spiritual world then you must believe in the biblical account of Jesus casting out demons from a man --> D
    This means you believe that possession and then exorcism by the Word of GOD is real --> E
    This mean you believe the Roman Ritual (the Vatican 'How To' on exorcism) is real --> F
    This means you believe that man can control spirits through the Word of GOD and cast them out of an afflicted person--> G
    This means you believe that ... opening a can of worms here... we can communicate with and be possessed by spirits, as exorcism is only conducted on those possessed. --> H

    A = H and if this is true then it opens up talks about Solomon's Temple and this text http://www.yankeeclassic.com/miskat...Key_and_Legematon_of_Solomon_(unabridged).pdf

    OR

    If you read up on exorcism it is not a -one and done- procedure. It is VERY much like hypnotherapy in which you have to return multiple times. This train of thought would lead me to believe that possession is nothing more than a psychological state in which people act out in a manner they believe is congruent with demonic/spiritual possession according to their belief set. Like the hypnotherapist the Exorcist has a number of appointments with the 'victim' and eventually resolves the core issue that caused the behavior.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013
  13. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    Your reasoning is severely flawed, specifically: Let us accept A -> B -> C -> D. E does NOT necessarily follow from D. A case could be made that Christ, being the Word of God, was able to exorcise specifically because of His unique nature. Therefore, mortals could not exorcise by such means. But let us accept, for the sake of argument that E follows from D. If E follows from D, it does NOT, under any circumstances mean that F must follow from E, since the Roman Catholics could still be doing it wrong. That is, they do not actually operate within the appropriate parameters exorcism via the Word of God. The rest then falls by the wayside.

    However, what about the Jews, who have exorcism but do not have a "Word of God"? Instead, they implore Ha-Shem (God most High) to please come down and help. They cannot command God, they can only humbly plead his assistance? For the Jews, A is true, but the rest doesn't follow from A. Thus, all the magical commanding that others claim would be, at best, self-deception, and at worse deception of the "commander" by demons.

    Actually, I'd wager that professional (properly licensed by hierarchy) exorcists within the Catholic Church (to accept their validity for the moment) would agree that this "repeated possession" phenomenon would be far more likely to be a psychiatric issue than a spiritual one.
     
  14. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    The evidence for "the other thread":

    http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php?14470-Hermeticism-and-Freemasonry

    Oddly enough, that particular thread seems to have been deleted from the web site.

    As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, here are some better summaries than what I could knock off from the top of my head:

    http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/deadsea.html
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

    However, no amount of reality will change a conspiracy theorist's mind.
     
  15. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    I like your reasoning, if the bible is correct in stating that Jesus was the Word in human form he would have a unique ability that would not necessarily transfer to the church. Also I knew only of the Catholic practice of exorcism, the Jewish practice is new information. My knowledge on the subject is thus far limited to the actual ritual (pdf upload) and the few articles on Catholic websites.


    In most cases the 'victim' undergoes psych eval before a exorcism is granted. The fact that it takes multiple sessions is what alerted me to the similarities between hypnotherapy and exorcism. Several of my friends are hypnotherapists and a few are stage hypnotists... quite good ones. I have seen them make people do some amazing things that would not have been possible if they were in a normal state of mind due to self imposed limitations.

    This thread has generated more attention than initially thought, I should have posted it elsewhere. I do enjoy the debate and different prospective.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013
  16. ni3f

    ni3f Registered User

    16
    0
    1
    Bialik said that anybody who reads the Bible in translation is like somebody who kisses his mother through a veil.

    Not everybody can master original languages but they should be wary of the limits of translation and, if they are serious, use multiple translations and read translator's notes.

    Believe it or not, we don't know the meaning of every word -- take Psalm 150. It is magnificent -- all praise and all musical instruments -- but the KJV translates them by giving them names of renaissance instruments !


    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  17. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    "Actually, I'd wager that professional (properly licensed by hierarchy) exorcists within the Catholic Church (to accept their validity for the moment) would agree that this "repeated possession" phenomenon would be far more likely to be a psychiatric issue than a spiritual one."

    - I like this.
    Would it be fair to say that the concept of hell and demons originates from the Greek Hades? Which can also parallel the Egyptian underworld?
     
  18. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    Bryan the sources you provided from "Grace Ministries" which I am guessing has a bit of an agenda still didn't answer the questions I posed which is what do find so mainstream and pedestrian.
     
  19. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
  20. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    I have come to realize that it doesn't matter what sources I cite, you will find an excuse to sidestep or dismiss them if it doesn't agree with your agenda.
     

Share My Freemasonry