Who Changed Genesis?

DamianWarS said:

Living languages change, dead language don't. Latin for example is still spoken but its a dead language because it doesn't change. The English in the KJV is dead and not spoken any more (nor is it taught in general ed) pass a KJV to a millennial and see how well they understand it.

Click to expand...

1600's English is technically called Early Modern English. This is what it states from Wikipedia.


Please take note that it says most modern readers of English can understand texts written in the late phase of Early Modern English such as the King James Bible, etc.

Source:
Early Modern English - Wikipedia

A list of extinct (dead) language can be found in Britain here:

List of extinct languages of Europe - Wikipedia

While nobody still speaks the language, it is not entirely extinct as a language because people today still read the King James and other works from this era.

Tra Phull said:

Jots and tittles - I had always considered them to be IOTA SUBSCRIPTS and BREATHING MARKS which are used in Koine Greek for specific purposes. Breathing marks are either rough or smooth.

These are what jots and tittles are to me.

I had always believed the Septuagint to be quoted more often by Jesus and apostles than Masoretic texts. This is the common view of most scholars, IMHO.

Those who poo-poo the Septuagint and exalt the KJV beyond all reason may have been influenced by John Connor, who went back in time on many occasions, spending whole weekends in Qumran, and several times disputed with Sadducees, embarrassing them so bad their movement went kaput after Temple destruction.

Watchers are good angels, if some of them fell, I have no knowledge of that.

If their are Hebrew marks of grammar that relate to JOTS AND TITTLES, I wouldn't know that either - I studied Greek and not Hebrew, and JOTS AND TITTLES match perfectly to me what iota subscriptions and rough and smooth breathing marks are.

Perhaps there are good Terminators and bad Terminators; good Watchers and bad Watchers.

John Connor also makes many time trips to get to the bottom of who changed Genesis.

Theophilus to whom Luke addressed his Gospels and Acts may have been a real guy, but possibly the name is figurative and simply means LOVER OF GOD.

Occam held this position once he quit shaving.

Click to expand...

Hopefully that pretty much wraps this up.

HARK! said:

The Textus Receptus doesn't stand to textual criticism.

Click to expand...

Westcott and Hort created the "Critical Text" and they were occultists.
Most of all your "Modern Translations" are based off of their New Testament Greek text and it is no surprise that we get a watering down of:

• The Trinity.
• The Deity of Christ.
• The Incarnation.
• The Blood Atonement.
• Holy Living.

And we see the devil's name placed for Christ and or other holy things of God. Then again, don't take my word for it. Do your own homework.

The KJV comes from a different line (different vine) of manuscripts. The pure vine.

Bible Highlighter said:

1600's English is technically called Early Modern English. This is what it states from Wikipedia.

"The grammatical and orthographical conventions of literary English in the late 16th century and the 17th century are still very influential on modern Standard English. Most modern readers of English can understand texts written in the late phase of Early Modern English, such as the King James Bible and the works of William Shakespeare, and they have greatly influenced Modern English."​

Please take note that it says most modern readers of English can understand texts written in the late phase of Early Modern English such as the King James Bible, etc.

Source:
Early Modern English - Wikipedia

A list of extinct (dead) language can be found in Britain here:

List of extinct languages of Europe - Wikipedia

While nobody still speaks the language, it is not entirely extinct as a language because people today still read the King James and other works from this era.

Click to expand...

People today still read ancient Greek texts, whatever point you make with early modern english it can be made with ancient Greek except that there are going to be fewer people who understand it.

HARK! said:

The end? What about his covenant with them? Did he even have a covenant with the Pharisees?

Click to expand...

Factoids. Sadducees are not even mentioned in the Gospel of John. Only once in Luke, repeating the narrative from Matthew and Mark when they try to make a mockery of the resurrection. From Matthew and Acts we can see that they were rivals of the Pharisees, and influential on the Sanhedrin.
Their errors were no small matters.
Acts 23:8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
If rumors of the Resurrection didn't rattle them enough, the day of Pentecost must have been a big day for their following.

Ahh - the DEMONIZING of Westcott and Hort...

If that KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas - it's good enough for me!!!

I currently have a KJV, an Orthodox Study Bible, a NRSV, and an NIV whose print is too small for me even with glasses. The Orthodox Study Bible has a Septuagint-based OT - quite unique. It's NT is a plain old New King James Version.

John Connor did in fact complete a perfect Genesis, but it was in the pocket of a bad guy that Arnold Schwarzenegger dangled from a building - Arnold let him go.
No longer extant, like the fabled GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LINDA HAMILTON - neither Gnostic or heretical as some claim.
I personally like KJV, I studied much English Literature as far back as Beowulf.

In some of these matters, it is wise to consider what Zeus said to Narcissus:

WATCH YOURSELF

Minister Monardo said:

I understand the POV of Yeshua. However, the Gospels we read rely on Greek scholarship. Luke wrote a Gospel and Acts. He was Greek or Jew? Regardless, he would have relied on the Greek OT for his work, in writing in Greek. He was never quoting Jesus directly, as he did not walk with Him. What matters is that his work is inspired. He makes more references to being "filled with the Holy Spirit" than Matthew, who was a disciple.

Click to expand...

The author of Matthew's gospel is unknown.

The gospel itself does not specify an author, but he was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[12] Early Christian tradition attributes the gospel to the apostle Matthew, but this is rejected by modern scholars.[10][11] (wikipedia Gospel of Matthew)

DamianWarS said:

People today still read ancient Greek texts, whatever point you make with early modern english it can be made with ancient Greek except that there are going to be fewer people who understand it.

Click to expand...

This is just not true. Anyone can just pick up and read the King James Bible, and or Shakespeare today and be able to understand a good majority of it. Show that same person the Hebrew and Greek and they will have no clue as to what it says whatsoever. They are relying 100% on the scholar to translate it. So there is no normal reading because one is looking up words all the time, and Jesus said for us to beware of the scribe (which is the scholar today because scribes tran-scribed the Scriptures).

Side Note:

Sure, if you were to use the font type, and spelling back then, it would be more difficult, but not impossible if one knows their King James Bible. But the font type and spelling aside, it is merely a revision update and not an entirely new translation. It's why Bibles today can say 1611 on them and they are not in the original font type or old spelling. Sure, in our updated KJV today: there are some difficult words, but that is what a dictionary that is unbiased to some religious agenda is for. The difference is that James Strong and his buddies (who created our famous Lexicon today) were not under a double check system like the translators behind the King James were.

DamianWarS said:

People today still read ancient Greek texts, whatever point you make with early modern english it can be made with ancient Greek except that there are going to be fewer people who understand it.

Click to expand...

Another problem I have is when folks look to the Hebrew and Greek is that they are basically saying there is no English Bible today that is perfect, and so THEY GET TO DECIDE (kind of like a choose your adventure book) on how God's Word should be written. But the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. There are a ton of ways a person can translate a verse to their own liking or end.

God's Word does not change them, but they change God's Word. That's the problem. There is no nailed down trusted Bible that they can adhere to. They decide what words mean to them.

HARK! said:

So who do you suppose wrote it, when, and why?

Click to expand...

It's not important. It's clearly not backed up by many reliable sources, but only source that is questionable at best. It seems like it was more in league with Catholicism or the Orthodox churches. If you are Catholic or Orthodox, then by all means, follow the LXX. It was at one time, one of their favored Bibles. Protestants through history used the King James.

Catholics / Orthodox follow the LXX because it originally contained the Apocrypha. Yes, I am aware the KJV also contained it, but it was later removed because it was never regarded by true believers as an authoritative text (even at the creation of the 1611 KJV). I believe the King James Bible was perfected in the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900). Psalms talks about how His Word is purified seven times (See: Psalms 12:6-7). There were seven purifications (or minor updates) throughout history for the KJV.

HARK! said:

The KJV mixes pure fiction with scripture:

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Wow. So you don't believe the part of the Bible that talks about the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8?

Well, we can confirm it's placement by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

For example:

John 4:14 says,

John 7:37-39 says,

This relates. We can know what Jesus was writing in the ground when the Jews tested him in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery by looking at other Scripture. By Scripture, we see a reference to the LORD [Jesus], the fountain of living waters [the Holy Spirit].

Jeremiah 17:13 says,

Note 1: The words in brackets in light blue (above) is my commentary to the text.

Note 2: Words in bright red are references to the Holy Spirit. Words in green is in reference to the Tree of Life, the door (wood, tree), who is Jesus.

Note 3: In the words in the above verse, you will notice that they (the Jews) that were accusing Jesus in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery, their names were written down in the earth. This is what Jesus was writing in the Earth. Jesus was writing down the names of those who had forsaken the Lord. I highlighted the words in purple above in Jeremiah to show that their names written in the earth as we behold in the scene in John 8.

Note 4: We tie this together because of the words, "the LORD, the fountain of living waters" in Jeremiah 17:13 is tied to John 7:38 that says, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Again, John 7:38 says,

Here is the scene with Jesus writing in the ground with the Jews in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery:

John 8:4-6 says,

What is interesting is that the very previous chapter (John 7), we are told that anyone who believes in Jesus out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Yet, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is what these Jews rejected and their names were written in the ground because they forsaken the Lord.

DamianWarS said:

People today still read ancient Greek texts, whatever point you make with early modern english it can be made with ancient Greek except that there are going to be fewer people who understand it.

Click to expand...

Without the aid of the English translations, I believe we really are just trusting in what certain scholars say on what the Hebrew and Greek means by faith, and not all scholars agree. We either believe God preserved His Word in the world language today or He did not preserve it and His Word only exists in a language that nobody today can pick up such a book out of the blue and understand it. But is that how God does things?

"And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it." (Habakkuk 2:2).

How is this verse true today?

Can a person off the street just pick up a Hebrew and Greek only Bible and read it plainly and run?

Surely not.

But they can do that with a King James Bible.

Tra Phull said:

Ahh - the DEMONIZING of Westcott and Hort...

If that KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas - it's good enough for me!!!

I currently have a KJV, an Orthodox Study Bible, a NRSV, and an NIV whose print is too small for me even with glasses. The Orthodox Study Bible has a Septuagint-based OT - quite unique. It's NT is a plain old New King James Version.

John Connor did in fact complete a perfect Genesis, but it was in the pocket of a bad guy that Arnold Schwarzenegger dangled from a building - Arnold let him go.
No longer extant, like the fabled GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LINDA HAMILTON - neither Gnostic or heretical as some claim.
I personally like KJV, I studied much English Literature as far back as Beowulf.

In some of these matters, it is wise to consider what Zeus said to Narcissus:

WATCH YOURSELF

Click to expand...

I didn't write history on them. I am only accounting what was written on history about them. Just read up on them and you will see what they believed.

Bible Highlighter said:

Westcott and Hort created the "Critical Text" and they were occultists.

Click to expand...

Textual criticism they helped to formulate is not dependent on their college activities. KJV translators were anglicans, for infant baptism etc.

Bible Highlighter said:

Most of all your "Modern Translations" are based off of their New Testament Greek text

Click to expand...

No. Most modern translations are based on Nestlé Aland editions

Bible Highlighter said:

and it is no surprise that we get a watering down of:

• The Trinity.
• The Deity of Christ.
• The Blood Atonement.
• Holy Living.

Click to expand...

Actually, not true.

For example, John 1:18:
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
(the critical text)

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(KJV)

Who is against the deity of Christ now, ha?

Bible Highlighter said:

And we see the devil's name placed for Christ and or other holy things of God. Then again, don't take my word for it. Do your own homework.

Click to expand...

Reading the KJVO propaganda is not doing a homework. A sincere homework is to compare evidence and then decide.

HARK! said:

Genesis 10:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.


Luke 3:35-36 King James Version (KJV)
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Brenton's Septuagint (LXX)
Genesis 10:22 Commentaries & Bibles"> Sons of Shem{gr.Sem}, Elam, and Asshur{gr.Assur}, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Syria{gr.Aram}, and Cainan.

Genesis 10:23 Commentaries & Bibles"> And sons of Syria{gr.Aram}, Uz, and Ul, and Gater, and Mosoch.
Genesis 10:24 Commentaries & Bibles"> And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Eber{gr.Heber}.


Jubilees Chapter 8

1

In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, [1373 A.M.] in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu'eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she

2

bare him a son in the third year in this week, [1375 A.M.] and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for

Click to expand...

Most likely that handful of very anti Christ rabbis at the end of the first century who wrote the Masoretic text. They also altered about a have dozen verses about The messiah and loped off around 180O years from the genealogies
Of the Bible making the earth 6000 years old instead of closer to 8000.

Christians writers complained that these rabbis were doing this at the time to the Hebrew texts that the Christians did not have access to. Also as you noted the Septuigent that preceded the Masoretic text by 3 centuries also testifies to this as do the Dead Sea scrolls.
The KJV uses the Masoretic text as do many other translations. The myth is tha Jewish people would never ever ever ever alter the scripture. Well those ones did.

Bible Highlighter said:

This is just not true. Anyone can just pick up and read the King James Bible, and or Shakespeare today and be able to understand a good majority of it. Show that same person the Hebrew and Greek and they will have no clue as to what it says whatsoever. They are relying 100% on the scholar to translate it. So there is no normal reading because one is looking up words all the time, and Jesus said for us to beware of the scribe (which is the scholar today because scribes tran-scribed the Scriptures).

Side Note:

Sure, if you were to use the font type, and spelling back then, it would be more difficult, but not impossible if one knows their King James Bible. But the font type and spelling aside, it is merely a revision update and not an entirely new translation. It's why Bibles today can say 1611 on them and they are not in the original font type or old spelling. Sure, in our updated KJV today: there are some difficult words, but that is what a dictionary that is unbiased to some religious agenda is for. The difference is that James Strong and his buddies (who created our famous Lexicon today) were not under a double check system like the translators behind the King James were.

Click to expand...

My point is not that ancient Greek is easily understood but that it can be understood and not just be scholars. This idea that we can only get impactful meaning through a 400 year old English translation puts high value on the English speaking world with no value on the non-english speaking world. It is a very colonial, ethnocentric mindset and counter gospel I might add. I am a native English speaker and the KJV can be challenging, if it is like that for a native english speaker what is it like when English is a second language or non-english speakers? It completely devalues the rest of the world.

Bible Highlighter said:

they are basically saying there is no English Bible today that is perfect

Click to expand...

They are saying there is no such thing as a perfect translation, biblical or not. They are also recognizing that languages change so with that translations change with them. A translation works inside a vacuum but if you take it out of the vacuum all kinds of other variables have bearing because time is not frozen and with that cultures and languages aren't frozen.