Have you read the entire Bible?

[dfreybur]

The Grand Master’s list shall at all times include the al-Kitab al-Aqdas of Bahaism, the Tripitaka of Buddhism, the Analects of Confucianism, the Vedas of Hinduism, the Koran of Islam, the Tanach of Judaism, the Koji-ki of Shintoism, the Adi Granth of Sikhism, the Tao-te Ching of Taoism and the Zend Avesta of Zoroastrianism.

I don't know if I've read all or just part of - al-Kitab and Tripitaka. A couple of weeks ago I finished a list of Buddhist legendary books but I don't know if all of the parts of the Tripitaka were included. I have more Ba'hai books in my queue so I might complete al-Kitab in the next year or so.

I've read all of - Analects, Koran, Tenach (Old Testament), Tao-Te Ching, Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)

On my reading list - Vedas, Koji-ki, Adi Granth, Zend Avesta. And any other VSL I can find in English translation.

Interesting choice for Hindu. I've read Baghavat Gita and I'm currently going through the Ramanyana. I would have expected either Gita or Upanishads rather that the Vedas.

 

[LittleHunter]

The Hymn to Purusha in the Vedas is amazing. The sage who composed it was definitely a monotheist who received a profound, cosmic vision of God... It's really mind-blowing


My Freemasonry HD

 

[safehouse]

My Freemasonry HD

 

[LittleHunter]

I've only read small parts of the Zohar. That's some pretty deep stuff. Some of it I understand...some of it just makes me feel really ignorant, lol!


My Freemasonry HD

 

[BryanMaloney]

It's interesting discussion, And one we need be careful about. Revelations 22 says clearly not to alter the words of the bible so the real question is, what version of the Volume of the sacred law is acceptable? And who decides that ?

And when a Koran is that VSL? What about a Bhagavad Gita? How about a Book of Thoth (for the rare Sabean who might show up)? As for claims about what Rev. 22 says about the Bible as a whole--what is your familiarity with Greek and with the assembly of Scripture? "The Bible" did not exist as a single "book" for quite some time after Revelation was written. That is "this book" could simply refer only to Revelation and not any of the other "books" of the Bible. Ever notice that each portion of the Bible is referred to as a "book" in its own right? The ancient use of "book" confirms this. What we now call a "book" in common English was originally called a "codex". In the 5th century AD, Isadore of Seville explained that "A codex is composed of many books; a book is of one scroll. It is called 'codex' by way of metaphor for the trunks of trees or vines, as if it were a wooden stock, because it contains in itself a multitude of books, as if it were of branches."

Likewise, there are quotations within the New Testament that make it quite plain that it was the Septuagint (LXX) that was the "Old Testament" preferred by Christ and the Apostles and not the "Masoretic". Thus, the KJV would not qualify as being "not altered" if the prohibition were to apply to the Bible as a whole. In addition, the so-called "Apocrypha" were originally part of the KJV but were later omitted. Does this mean that the "inspired" KJV actually has been "altered"? Placing your trust in a single English translation is not borne out by the history of Canonical assembly nor by the history of that specific translation in the first place.

Finally, up through the early 200s there were still disputes over whether or not Revelation even belonged in the Bible or should be considered a "secondary" work of some sort. Where would that put it in terms of "this book" it referred to?

 

[jvarnell]

It's interesting discussion, And one we need be careful about. Revelations 22 says clearly not to alter the words of the bible so the real question is, what version of the Volume of the sacred law is acceptable? And who decides that ?
My Freemasonry HD

I see it as translation as not altering the word. I think it says to not alter the meaning of the word. When you read Revelations 22 you did it in English and it was written in Greek. Did you read it in a translation? The problems it not were the words altered but the meaning. I see this in 22:19. I have read the bible in 3 def. versions. Mohammed went as far as saying don't write this down just pass it on moth to ear so was writing the Quran down by his uncle a problem. I have read it only in one version as I have the Gita and Zohar.

I don't see that when I discuss any of these with people of other religions (friends) I understand them deferent than they do except one. It is when we take a translation and use our word as fact and not meaning we go wrong. This is why I am always trying understand why others understand thing the way they do. It is not to inforce my opinion but to try and understand theirs.

 

[Lowcarbjc]

At what stage did the latin word Lucifer start to appear in bibles?


My Freemasonry HD

 

[Brother JC]

At what stage did the latin word Lucifer start to appear ?

The late 4th-century Vulgate. It's a shame, too, because heōsphoros sounds so much cooler.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I understand it that the AV authorised version r King James Version are direct translations from
Hebrew and Greek. The NIV however is a translation from Latin late 16th century Vulgate txts. The new inclusive language version of the NIV for instance is a translation from mans ideas and mans desire on how they think the scriptures should be interpreted.

Whoever told you that is a bald-faced liar. The NIV is translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is a new translation that was not based on older translations. This is one reason for some differences in wording. In addition, different Greek versions were used for the NIV vs. the KJV. The Textus Receptus of the KJV actually has more Latin Vulgate in it than does the "critical text" used by the NIV, which is heavily influenced by the Alexandrian texts. The KJV Textus receptus is an inferior text, based on only 6 partial manuscripts, and it had several gaps, including in the New Testament. So Erasmus ended up back-translating some Latin Vulgate. There are complete non-critical texts that do tend to adhere to traditional interpretations, such as the Byzantine texts, but even the Alexandrian texts do not deviate far.

Actually, when the NIV came out in the 1980s the big problem that it was considered to have was that it was too "pro-Evangelical" in its "translation" choices. As its own organization states: "The purpose of the Committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars" and membership was restricted to those "who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: ‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs’; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement". Indeed, the NIV was originally rife with errors that creep in from attempting to pre-impose a specific Evangelical Protestant interpretation on Scripture. For example, Romans 3:25-26 has the Greek "dikaiosyne Theou", which means "righteousness of God". The NIV originally had "righteousness from God"--very different. It has since been corrected in later editions of the NIV. It also would translate a single Greek word as "traditions" or "teachings" depending on whether or not the word was used negatively or positively. If it is good, it is called "teachings", if it is bad, it is called "traditions". However the Greek word and intended Greek meaning is the same: Teachings = Traditions.

Many, but not all, of these outright translational falsifications have been corrected since the 1980s, which may not have set well with some people. Finally, the NIV did not have "gender neutral language" until 2011. Before then, there was a "TNIV" that used this, but the NIV as such did not.

But as masons been tolerant is one thing but there are things we should not tolerate, slavery, abuse in all it's forms, poverty, social injustices and distortion a of the truth (new translations) or deviations away from it or an embracing of things the the VOL deems as dark and speak against.

Your KJV is nothing but a "new translation" from the point of view of my Church. So, for that matter, would any Latin version be. Likewise, are you going to demand that lodges in Germany use the KJV? How about lodges in Italy, in Greece, in Russia? The Russians would look to their far more senior Slavonic and wonder why the new translation of the KJV is any better than the slightly more new translation of the NIV, and the Greeks? They can read the New Testament in the original Greek...

 

[LittleHunter]

My translation of the Bible is The only correct one; God told me so ;-P


My Freemasonry HD

 

[BroBook]

I,P&R 1984 I am not neither do I know if I will ever be !


My Freemasonry HD

 

[BroBook]

Yes H.I.M. Sends a new translation my way every couple of years since 1981 and read until l I have read the whole thing or it starts to fall a part!


My Freemasonry HD

 

[NonNobis]

I have personally translated New Testament scripture from Ancient Greek while pursuing studies at St. John's College. Greek is a very difficult language to translate and many words have a multitude of meanings. Logos, for instance, is taken to mean "word" as in "en arxei en ho logos" or "in the beginning there was the word" of John 1:1. However, logos is also used throughout Greek philosophical texts predating the New Testament to mean thought, speech, idea, plea, opinion, expectation, word, speech, account, reason, etc. The "best" translation, in my humble opinion is either an interlinear Greek (with the Greek and possible translations for each word) or the New World Translation, which I have found to be much more literal and less liberal with the Greek than the King James Version (and I am not a Jehovah's Witness, merely a student of language). I also believe, however, that one should have a very personal experience with their chosen religious text, and while the more literal versions speak to me another translation may better touch the heart of another. Having only been raised earlier this year, I am not a scholar of Masonic Law, but it seems to make sense and be in the spirit of the fraternity to be obligated on the text that most speaks to your personal spiritual journey and holds the highest reverence.

On a side note - I am a first time poster and greatly enjoy reading the opinions of my worthy brethren and finding out more about the nuances of legal Masonic workings from other regions than my own. More than once I have taken a discussion or thought from here to discuss at my home lodge, Joseph W. Summers #173 Morgantown, WV. Many thanks for spreading the light!


My Freemasonry HD

 

[Brother JC]

Welcome, Brother. I, too, have gotten inspiration from these threads for educational talks to share with the Brethren.

 

[BroBook]

That has ways been an argument of mine also. I think few people stop to consider that.

I have read a lot of bibles and other "religious books"and non as well , touching upon plagiarism since we as brothers at least I think
Know that GOD made one man why are we surprised that the different tribes are telling similar stories. One of my favorite verses says that GOD says if we can talk to each other there is nothing we can't accomplish . I found a good/different translation called the lexham study bible under the verbum app.



My Freemasonry HD

 

[jonesvilletexas]

Yes, The 1611 KJV, 1 time per year.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Yes, The 1611 KJV, 1 time per year.

And this includes, of course, the so-called "Apocrypha", since they were in the 1611 KJV, I presume. And let us not forget the translators' preface, which is part of the 1611 KJV.

 

[BroBook]

And this includes, of course, the so-called "Apocrypha", since they were in the 1611 KJV, I presume. And let us not forget the translators' preface, which is part of the 1611 KJV.

Every time I see a different translation I try to read the preface ( pre- face)


My Freemasonry HD

 

[dfreybur]

And this includes, of course, the so-called "Apocrypha", since they were in the 1611 KJV, I presume. And let us not forget the translators' preface, which is part of the 1611 KJV.

When I wanted to read the Apocrypha none of my Bible copies had them. I needed to go get a separate copy. Thanks for the lesson in what versions have what contents.

 

[CuAllaidh]

Yup, I have read the Bible.

Should point out this poll should have the option of "yes, and my VSL is not the bible"