Original Bible translation

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

  1. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I was not going to say anything on this subject but you just showed up one of the translation of the bible. That is that when being translated in to Latin from original manuscripts. The word הֵילֵל Lucifer means light bearer not Satan. This is what happens when man changes the definitions of words. You always have to look at the meaning from the time period of when it is written and not what you think about the word now.
     
  2. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    The word agenda is a problem in any discussion. We all cite information and the reader can see for him self if it fits what they think. The word agenda needs to be replaced with views. Agenda is a "will" or "shall" contract type word. You both have views of the information that are deferent.
     
  3. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    Brother I read the sources, I don't see how they answer the question.

    Like I have said in the past, I sometimes find a certain anger in your post and I am uncertain why. I almost sense you feel you need to defend the Christian faith from something, but what I am not certain. I could guess from your previous post you perceive Gnosticism as such and maybe even a little elitist, but have never provided evidence of these so-called Gnostics actually demanding that their faith makes better Masons, etc. so I am not sure why you have or I sense a distaste there either.

    I honestly can't figure out why anyone would get mad on behalf of Christ. Heck, when Peter loped an ear off Jesus admonished him. The walk of Christ seems to me to be one filled with meekness, humility and submission. He is never depicted in angry rhetoric (although he is of course depicted as angry once).

    I read the documents you provided, but they didn't answer how the Scrolls are pedestrian and as I stated before the statement that the scrolls were mainstream is not historically defensible from what I have studied.

    Just out of curiosity, what is my agenda?
     
  4. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    And...another big problem is that is not a Hebrew word....at all. The Hebrew translations of Isaiah still do not possess the Roman Lucifer.

    I think it was something like the 400's when Lucifer shows up in Isaiah.
     
  5. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    That was my original reasoning behind the post. I was trying to discover the changes cause by translations and how they affected interpretation. The Vulgate was a different view of the translation. That along with the sources Bryan provided have helped considerably.
     
  6. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    The translators of the KJV, still the most popular English translation, recommended that people consult multiple translations and wrote this in the preface of the KJV--this recommendation has been cut from many current versions, especially those versions espoused by the "KJV-only" crowd.
     
  7. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    Well I am not Jewish but have been trying to learn Hebrew and that is what I found in some of my research. I know that it did not show up until a Munk tried to translate. Why don't you send me that Hebrew sentence and how you translate it and see how you would translate it with a 300 to 400 mind set. Remember what do the words mean at that time and not now. You know like the meaning of marriage was a man and woman for thousands of years and now soon may not. That is why Sr. Frances Bacon wanted people to make new words and not modify existing words. Also what kilnd of word is it.
     
  8. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I am a Christian and I get, not mad but bothered when people use there non-Christain inturputations on behalf or Christ.
     
  9. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    Jesus was Jewish. The Old Testament can be supported, to a certain extent, through archeological artifacts. How about the New Testament? Honest question here, I have only found what my keywords on Google have provided.
     
  10. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    "helel ben-sahar" (roughly). It means "star, son of morning". Isaiah was making fun of a mortal king who was called "the morning star" by his flunkies. So, the prophet said: How you have fallen, morning star, from your lofty home! Much later, "Lucifer" was used as a very rational translation for "star of the morning", since the planet Venus is known as the "morning star" and the "light bringer"--it is often visible shortly before dawn. Lucifer is just the planet Venus. This is like the unfortunate people who insist that God must be called "Jehovah" and nothing else. "Jehovah" was invented roughly around AD 1100, in some attempt to give a pronunciation, any pronunciation at all, to the Tetragrammaton for scholarly purposes. It had no doctrinal significance until later.

    Then again, "X-mas" had no doctrinal significance for Christians for centuries. Back when everything was hand-written, people abbreviated a LOT--we're talking on the level of texting abbreviations. Thus, "X" was a common abbreviation for "Christ", being the Greek letter "X", not the English letter "X". Likewise, "ΘΣ" was a common way to write "God", but sloppy scribes might end up actually writing "OS", which could lead to confusion.

    Thus, commonplace translations of words become transmogrified into names. Ordinary abbreviations become hot points of contention. Now some people get panties very tightly twisted over "X-Mas", even though it's a very old way to properly abbreviate "Christ's Mass".

    Y, MH&O.
     
  11. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    "Jesus was Jewish. The Old Testament can be supported, to a certain extent, through archeological artifacts. How about the New Testament? Honest question here, I have only found what my keywords on Google have provided."

    - I like this.

    "
    Well I am not Jewish but have been trying to learn Hebrew and that is what I found in some of my research. I know that it did not show up until a Munk tried to translate. Why don't you send me that Hebrew sentence and how you translate it and see how you would translate it with a 300 to 400 mind set. Remember what do the words mean at that time and not now. You know like the meaning of marriage was a man and woman for thousands of years and now soon may not. That is why Sr. Frances Bacon wanted people to make new words and not modify existing words. Also what kilnd of word is it.
    "helel ben-sahar" (roughly). It means "star, son of morning". Isaiah was making fun of a mortal king who was called "the morning star" by his flunkies. So, the prophet said: How you have fallen, morning star, from your lofty home! Much later, "Lucifer" was used as a very rational translation for "star of the morning", since the planet Venus is known as the "morning star" and the "light bringer"--it is often visible shortly before dawn. Lucifer is just the planet Venus. This is like the unfortunate people who insist that God must be called "Jehovah" and nothing else. "Jehovah" was invented roughly around AD 1100, in some attempt to give a pronunciation, any pronunciation at all, to the Tetragrammaton for scholarly purposes. It had no doctrinal significance until later.

    Then again, "X-mas" had no doctrinal significance for Christians for centuries. Back when everything was hand-written, people abbreviated a LOT--we're talking on the level of texting abbreviations. Thus, "X" was a common abbreviation for "Christ", being the Greek letter "X", not the English letter "X". Likewise, "ΘΣ" was a common way to write "God", but sloppy scribes might end up actually writing "OS", which could lead to confusion.

    Thus, commonplace translations of words become transmogrified into names. Ordinary abbreviations become hot points of contention. Now some people get panties very tightly twisted over "X-Mas", even though it's a very old way to properly abbreviate "Christ's Mass".

    Y, MH&O."

    - I always thought that the abbreviation of Christ in Greek was CHI RHO?
     
  12. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    ΘΣ is an abbreviation for "Theos". The "X" is a "chi" if used as an abbreviation. Thus "Xmas" is a mixture of Greek and pidgin Latin--"chi" + "mass".
     
  13. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    Bro. Maloney this is the same way I translate it and was answering Br0. Porter's statements. This is the passage of the old testament that some anti-masons and should read and translate the same as we do before reading Morals and Dogma and using that as why they say Masons are Satanist.

    If you have ever had a king James bible scholar argue how bad masons are to your face this is what they start with. That is why I am pashanant about the word that was translated into the word Lucifer and what meaning is attached to the word Lucifer after 300ad.
     
  14. Tubal Cain

    Tubal Cain Registered User

    2
    0
    0
    It's not the lucifer (morning star ) that most infer to the satanic image portrayed by masons it's the idles that are praised. Start with the Hiram Abiff and follow his bloodline through to the beginning. You'll meet many familiars along the path. And at the base of the tree is eve and let's say not Adam.


    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  15. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    A certain Masonic author, who I personally enjoy talking to and reading his research told me that Lucifer is an archetype, and that the Angel that fell and became Satan fell from this archetype and became what we seem satan.
     
  16. Bro. Thomas Altizer

    Bro. Thomas Altizer Registered User

    6
    1
    0
    Wasn't calf or cow worship used in molech worship?


    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  17. nostic

    nostic Registered User

    5
    0
    0
    I like what you shared about the archtype,it has it in the bible that lucifer was the archangel..he was to set his kingdom on the seventh heaven,what great knowledge and wisdom lucifer posseses to biblically be cast out of heaven,but in that,civilization spring and great knowledge sprung to humanity.

    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  18. nostic

    nostic Registered User

    5
    0
    0
    Through some studies,my interest in ancient history grew,the story of adam and eve..and also lilith.to my understanding, genesis also describes the ice age effects.any one interested in this subject? im a seeker in persuit of the truth.

    Freemason Connect Mobile
     

Share My Freemasonry