Black Spirituality Religion : DON'T LINE UP WITH SCRIPTURE ?!!

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by Keita Kenyatta, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    [SIZE=3]I just finished reading a post about the so called Essene, and in the post there was a reply about things not lining up with the Scripture. Of course I wouldn't call names cause that's not actually polite. So let me state this to be another fact.

    In 1720 there were at least 20,000 errors found in the Bible. By 1952 Look Magazine ran a story whereby 50,000 errors were found in the Bible. This is quite amazing in itself ! I wouldn't care if it was only 1,000 errors. The truth of the matter is that the Scriptures DON'T EVEN LINE UP WITH ITSELF ! IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT'S QU'RAN OR BIBLE.

    We can call it human error, we can call it misprint, misinterpretation or anything else we want to. The books are in error and we live our lives by them which makes us in error with the books.

    I used to believe in Jesus too and that the Bible was God's Word. Suddenly I see in Isaiah 43:11 " I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour".

    Then I see in Isaiah 45:22 " Look unto me and be ye saved, all the end of the earth ! For I am God, and there is none else".

    Suddenly I see in Mark 10:18 the very words of the one who was my fake saviour telling me: " Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God."

    Common sense told me right then that Jesus wasn't the one. If Jesus was worshipping God, then that's who I was supposed to worship. If Jesus called out God's name, then that's whose name I'm supposed to call out. If jesus admitted to me "HE WAS NOT GOOD", THEN THAT PLACED HIM IN THE SAME BOAT AS ME. HE WAS NOT PERFECT AND NEITHER AM I. THEREFORE WITH JESUS NOT BEING GOOD OR PERFECT, HE WAS NOT THE ONE I SHOULD BE FOLLOWING.

    So, the bottom line is that the pot can't call the kettle black and the imperfect can not continue to follow the imperfect. Those who admit that they are not good can not lead those who strive to be good. Am I making any sense here? Maybe too much !!

    More to come !!
    [/SIZE]
     
  2. Sekhemu

    Sekhemu Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    priest
    Location:
    new jersey
    Ratings:
    +1,064

    Excellent thread!
     
  3. MizLindaLinda

    MizLindaLinda Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2
    Of course I wouldn't call names cause that's not actually polite. So let me state this to be another fact.

    Laughinggggggggggg.I'm not shy about calling names and neither should you be :) Go ahead and say it. Oh gosh, I;ll just quit beating around the bush and say it. It was MIZLINDALINDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Will wait until you finish this before I give a serious reply, and I do agree, this is an excellent thread.
     
  4. j'hiah

    j'hiah Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    lend me some sugar.. l am your neighbor
    Ratings:
    +70
     
  5. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    Okay j'hiah or any other curious person who might wonder as to why I answered the thread the way I did. I first advise you to go and read the thread entitled; "No Religious Book Can Be Trusted". Only then, if you're objective and have a free and balanced thought process, can you understand why I said what I said.

    To speak with me as if the books you're reading from are authentic is the first mistake. The second one is in not being able to verify how and why you think those books are real and truthful. The third is in understanding that Jesus and his followers were not Greek and did not speak Greek...so where are the supposed original Aramaic writings that the New Testament was supposedly taken from?

    The fourth mistake is in reading the books and failing to see that the books are written in a third person. In other words, the very persons that the books claim to be from are not the authors. With that being the case, just WHO ARE THE MYSTERIOUS AUTHORS THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO TRUST AS BEING HONEST? Mistake number five is in not reading the PREVIOUS 16 BIBLES BEFORE THE KING JAMES VERSION FOR COMPARISON.

    Mistake number six is in ignoring the history and the writings of that time period to see what thay had to say concerning this supposed Jesus. Also, ones failure to read the writings of the supposed FOUNDING FATHERS OF CHRISTIANITY IN REFERENCE TO THESE BOOKS IS A CRITICAL MISTAKE MANY OFTEN MAKE.

    Mistake number seven is in our failure as a people to read the history of our own people before, during and after this time period in order to understand if what we have is true, what the political and historical climate was at that time in regard to us as a people, and of the possibility that the books we now read from could be forgeries from much earlier writings.

    Now being that there are many people in the bible named Jesus and Christ is a title and not a last name, what Jesus could you possibly be talking about? Did anyone tell you that a Jesus cult existed in 100 b.c. long before the one in the Bible was supposedly born? Did anyone tell you that the first person described in the bible as perfect, upright and blamless was not Jesus?

    Are you sure you want to dance with me? I already have someone I'm holding hands with, but she might be polite enough to allow you to cut in if that's what you want? I personally have no problem with that.
     
  6. j'hiah

    j'hiah Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    lend me some sugar.. l am your neighbor
    Ratings:
    +70
    do you not have any direct answers to my previous reply to you?
    did you miss it?

    l await.

    'sall peace.
     
  7. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    Would you be asking me "who my example is?
     
  8. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    Oh, and before you say that Jesus didn't sin, it might be a good thing to read the books that they took out of the Bible. It might be nice to understand that God created us with the greatest gift of all...FREE WILL. Now, if somebody took a bunch of books out the Bible because they had the power and had read them to in order to make that decision for whatever reason they chose to do so, then they have interfered with my FREE WILL.

    If they had the opportunity to read them, why shouldn't I? They made a choice for me before I was born in terms of what I should and shouldn't read, thereby dictating their WILL over the FREE WILL we were all given.

    After reading the books that they took out the Bible, I can understand why. They felt the need to control information and as such, the thought process, bahavior and beliefs of people.

    So when you say that Jesus didn't sin, are you really sure and upon what do you base that? In other words, what side or whose side of the story was you exposed to? As for my example? There are many in our history. Better yet, just the SPIRITUAL WRITINGS ALONE SUPERCEDE ANYTHING WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. SO ANYTIME WE HAD CIVILIZATIONS BEING GOVERNED BY WHAT WE WOULD NOW CALL A THEOCRATIC SOCIETY, THAT IN ITSELF SHOULD TELL YOU THE LEVEL OUR PEOPLE WERE ON AND LIVED. THERE YOU WILL FIND YOUR EXAMPLES.
     
  9. MizLindaLinda

    MizLindaLinda Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2
    Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    The KJV, Authorized version, is the 7th and final purification of the written word of God. Our authority for the infallible words of the KJV English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! Research it!
    The Septuagint, commonly designated LXX, is the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament of the BIBLE, the title "seventy" referring to the tradition that it was the work of 70 translators (or 72 in some traditions). The translation was made from the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews during the period 275-100 BC at Alexandria. Initially the Septuagint was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, but its adoption by the Christians, who used it in preference to the Hebrew original, aroused hostility among the Jews, who ceased to use it after about AD 70. It is still used by the Greek Orthodox church. Ancient manuscripts from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) suggest that the Septuagint often followed a Hebrew text different from the present Hebrew text. Thus its value for textual criticism has been enhanced. The Septuagint provides an understanding of the cultural and intellectual settings of Hellenistic Judaism. It also again proves the superiority of the Majority text, used for the Authorized English Scriptures.

    There are two manuscript streams from which bible versions are made. There is truth and there is error. There is One True God. We must also contend with Lucifer the false god of this world and father of lies. Lucifer's fingerprints can be found on the stream of error flowing from the wrong stream of "scholarship." The Antioch, Syrian, Textus Receptus, Majority Text stream is the tree which produces the Authorized scriptures. These scriptures agree with each other 100% of the time. This is verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls and true scholarship. The Alexandria or Vatican stream or tree is where we find the Luciferian scholars Wescott and Hort. This Alexandria or Vaticanus tree produces all the error in the Non-Authorized scriptures
    The Greek influence in Judea had grown very significantly since the days of Alexander the Great, circa 330 B.C. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-165 B.C., Hellenism had become very strong, and many of the high priests had become "Hellenists," leading to the Maccabean revolt. In successive generations, the Greek influence never abated, particularly among the business, commercial and priestly crowd. Many of the priests, being Sadducees, were greatly influenced by Greek culture and contact.

    The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that a TRILINGUALISM EXISTED IN PALESTINE in the first and second century of the Christian era. In addition to Aramaic, some Jews also spoke Hebrew or Greek -- or both. Different levels of Jewish society, different kinds of religious training and other factors may have determined who spoke what"
    During the Babylonian captivity, many Jews came to use Aramaic as their first language, a sister language closely akin to Hebrew. Although Hebrew continued in use in the Temple, and the emerging synagogues, Aramaic was the common language of the people during the time of Christ. The majority of the people apparently did not fully understand Hebrew, for the custom arose to have an Aramaic translation read of the Hebrew Scriptures, following the reading in Hebrew, in all the synagogues. These readings and interpretations were done by a person called the meturgeman. In time, they were written down and were called targumin.

    Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander's conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings"

    A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists." The King James Version says, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or "Greeks"? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, in whose synagogues Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: "And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . ." The "Grecians" or "Hellenists" were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem.



    "Such Hellenistai may have spoken very little, if any, Hebrew or Aramaic. This is suggested by a reference in Philippians 3:5 where Paul stoutly refers to himself as 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews.' Paul also spoke Greek. Thus Hellinistai as C. F. D. Moule has suggested probably is the designation of those Jerusalem Jews or Jewish Christians who habitually spoke only Greek (and for that reason were more affected by Hellenistic culture), whereas Hebraioi designated those Greek-speaking Jews and Jewish Christians who also spoke a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, which they normally used" What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a "second language"?

    "The answer is almost certainly yes. The more difficult question, however, is whether he taught in Greek. Are any of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved for us only in Greek nevertheless in the original language in which he uttered them?

    "That Aramaic was the language Jesus normally used for both conversation and teaching seems clear. Most New Testament scholars would agree with this. But did he also speak Greek? The evidence already recounted for the use of Greek in first-century Palestine provides the background for an answer to this question. But there are more specific indi- cations in the Gospels themselves.

    "All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate"

    Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

    In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a "Greek" (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek.

    Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

    Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. :

    "Moreover, these specific instances in which Jesus apparently spoke Greek are consistent with his Galilean background. In Matthew 4;15, this area is referred to as 'Galilee of the Gentiles.' Growing up and living in this area, Jesus would have had to speak some Greek. Nazareth was a mere hour's walk to Sepphoris and in the vicinity of other cities of the Decapolis. Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, was built by Herod Antipas; the population there, too, was far more bilingual than in Jerusalem.

    "Coming from such an area, JESUS would NO DOUBT HAVE SHARED THIS DOUBLE LINGUISTIC HERITAGE. Reared in an area where many inhabitants were GREEK- SPEAKING GENTILES, Jesus, the 'carpenter' (tekon, Mark 6:3), like Joseph, his foster- father (Matthew 13:55), would have had to deal with them in GREEK. Jesus was not an illiterate peasant and did not come from the lowest stratum of Palestinian society; he was a skilled craftsman. He is said to have had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:15). He would naturally have conducted business in Greek with gentiles in Nazareth and neighboring Sepphoris" Did Jesus also, therefore, teach in Greek? Were many of His parables and saying actually uttered in the Greek language?

    In the time of Christ, three languages figured prominently in the lives of the people of Judaea -- the common language of Aramaic, the language of Hebrew, used in the synagogues, and the Greek language -- which was commonly spoken and understood throughout the Roman Empire.

    Some Aramaic words and expressions are preserved in the Gospels, such as Talitha cum, which means, "Little girl, get up!" (Mark 5:41). Also, Abba ("Father"; Mark 14:36; Gal.4:6; Rom.8:15); Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"; Mark 15:34); Cephas ("Peter"; John 1:42); Mammon ("Wealth"; Matt.6:24, RSV); Raca ("Fool"; Matt.5:22, RSV). In fact, we can be specific and say that Jesus spoke a Galilean version of "western Aramaic," which differed from that which was spoken in Jerusalem (Matt.26:73; compare Acts 2:7).

    Jesus could also read and speak Hebrew. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has proved that Hebrew was used quite extensively in certain circles, especially for religious purposes. Jesus stood up and read the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20), showing He could also read and speak Hebrew. Some Hebrew words are also preserved in the gospels, such as, Ephphatha ("Be opened"; Mark 7:34); Amen ("Amen": Matt.5:26; Mark 14:30, RSV).

    "The third major language spoken in Palestine was Greek. The impact of Alexander the Great's conquests in the fourth century B.C. resulted in the Mediterranean's being a 'Greek sea' in Jesus' day. In the third century Jews in Egypt could no longer read the Scriptures in Hebrew, so they began to translated them into Greek. This famous translation became known as the Septuagint (LXX). Jesus, who was reared in 'Galilee, of the Gentiles,' lived only three or four miles from the thriving Greek city of Sepphoris. There may even have been times when he and his father worked in this rapidly grow- ing metropolitan city, which served as the capital city of Herod Antipas until A.D. 26, when he moved the capital to Tiberias"The bible tells us that the existence of "Hellenists" in the early Church (Acts 6:1-6) implies that from the beginning of the Church, there were Greek speaking Jewish Christians in the Church. The term "Hellenists" suggests their language was Greek, rather than their cultural or philosophical outlook. Remember, these were Jewish Christians whose primary language was Greek -- they were not Greek philosophers or their followers, but followers of Christ Jesus.



    "Two of Jesus' disciples were even known by their Greek names: Andrew and Philip. In addition, there are several incidents in Jesus' ministry when he spoke to people who knew neither Aramaic nor Hebrew. Thus unless a translator was present (though none is ever mentioned), their conversations probably took place in the Greek language. Probably Jesus spoke Greek during the following occasions: the visit to Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31ff), the conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30; compare especially 7?26) and the trial before Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:2-15; compare also Jesus' conversation with the 'Greeks' in John 12:20-36)" (p.87, emphasis all mine).

    The fact that Jesus Christ and the disciples all knew and spoke Greek, as a "third language," in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, is also indicated and supported by the fact that all the gospels and epistles of the New Testament are written and preserved in the Greek language.

    Stop and think! It is very significant that no early Christian documents are extant in Aramaic! ALL the earliest New Testament documents and fragments are in Greek! Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor stated that Matthew had put together the "sayings" of Jesus in the Hebrew dialect, Aramaic. But no one has ever seen them. All we have are GREEK manuscripts, and as far back as we go, GREEK is the language of the New Testament! Strange, isn't it, that not one manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew predates the Greek?

    Scholars have long denied the veracity of the New Testament Scriptures, claiming that the earliest gospels were not eye-witness accounts of Christ and His life, but were written some one hundred years afterward, or about the middle of the second century, and were based on hearsay, myth, fable, and oral stories which had been passed down. Thus many scholars have regarded the very words of Christ, as recorded in the gospels, as "suspect."

    Astonishing as it may seem, however, bits of papyrus in an Oxford University library puts the lie to the cherished theories of unbelieving, skeptical scholars! Three scraps of text of the gospel of Matthew, inscribed in Greek, have traditionally been believed to have been written in the late second century. But German papyrus expert Carsten Thiede has published a paper arguing that these fragments kept at Oxford's Magdalen College very likely represent an actual EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT of the life of Jesus!

    The London Times reported that the evidence on an early form of writing paper was a potentially "important breakthrough in biblical scholarship, on a level with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947" (Los Angeles Times, Dec.25, 1994, "Gospel Fragments in Britain May Be Contemporary Account of Life of Jesus Christ, p.A42).Look this up in their archives.

    Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of the New Testament as historical, believing that the earliest texts were written long after the actual events described. However, careful new analysis by Professor Thiede has dated the fragments to the middle of the first century, thereby indicating that they are evidence that the Matthew Gospel was written only a generation after the crucifixion, or even earlier! Says William Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times, "Parts of the New Testament may have been written by men who actually knew Christ, rather than authors recounting a 2nd-Century version of an oral tradition."

    The Magdalen fragments have been at the Oxford college since 1901. Little work has been done on them since 1953 when they were last edited by biblical scholars. But earlier this year, Thiede visited Oxford and inspected the papyrus. He concluded,

    "The Magdalen fragment now appears to belong to a style of handwriting that was current in the 1st Century A.D., and that slowly petered out around the mid-1st Century. Even a hesitant approach to questions of dating would therefore seem to justify a date in the 1st Century, about 100 years earlier than previously thought."

    The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

    This new discovery by Professor Carsten Thiede, a papyrus expert, will provoke controversy among scholars, if not even dismay and consternation on the part of disbelievers and skeptics. His discovery is strong evidence that the gospel accounts regarding the life of Jesus Christ are accurate, and reliable historical documents.

    The Magdalene fragment from the Gospel of Matthew has been identified as coming from a document dated to the middle of the first century A.D. -- during the very lives of the apostles! This fragment is written in GREEK, and could even be a fragment from an original monograph written by the apostle Matthew himself! This amazing new discovery is powerful evidence, obviously, that the writer, evidently the apostle Matthew, was very familiar with the Greek language and was capable of writing intelligently in it.

    Furthermore, it is interesting to note that some of the disciples of Christ had Greek names -- Andrew, Philip, Simon (a Grecized form of the Hebrew Sim on), Levi/Matthew, a tax collector. It is possible that many Greek terms preserved in the New Testament may be there because they were originally uttered in Greek. One such word is "Sanhedron," which comes from the Greek synedrion. It is of Greek, not Hebrew, derivation, and was the common term used for the Jewish high court.

    A word often used by Jesus, "hypocrite," in describing the Pharisees and Sadducees, comes from the Greek word hypokrites, a compound word with the Greek preposition hypo for "under" and krites, meaning "judgment." This form is wholly lacking in Semitic languages. The word hypokrites basically means, "one who answers" (i.e., one who always has an answer, or excuse), but came to mean over time not only "expounder" or "interpreter," but "orator," "actor," stage actor, or one who spoke from behind a dramatic mask on stage. From this it came to mean "pretender," "dissembler." But this Greek word, so familiar in the denunciations of Christ, has no counterpart in Hebrew or Aramaic.


    What difference does it make, anyway, what language Jesus and His disciples spoke? The answer becomes clear when we realize that there are churches, sects and cults today which make a great issue over the subject of "holy names." These churches will not use ANY name for God or Christ in ANY language except what they call the original "Hebrew" names for God and the Messiah.

    According to these people, it is a SIN to mention on one's lips the word Adonai in Hebrew, translated "Lord" in the Old Testament! According to them, the word "Adonai" is a name for Baal the sun-god, and so "Lord" is a title for Baal, the sun-god! It does not seem to matter to them that the Scriptures themselves use this very word repeatedly in reference to the True God of Israel! Similarly, they condemn the use of the Hebrew name El, Elohim, Eloah, and all its derivatives as being PAGAN terms, used of the pagan gods of antiquity. They condemn the use of such words, including any and all translations from them, such as "God," "Most High God," etc. Any titles used for pagan gods they forbid to be used of the True God! Yet the Scriptures themselves repeatedly refer to the true God as El, Elohim, Eloah, etc., in the Old Testament, which translates into English as "God" (Gen.1:1, etc.).

    Of course, the fact that God preserved the entirely of the New Testament in the Greek language seems to give these people "fits." They claim Greek is another pagan language, and that such terms as Iesous translated "Jesus," and Theos translated "God" are also pagan names and must not be used. They claim that a vast, overriding "conspiracy" in the first century destroyed all the "missing" Hebrew original documents, and that the New Testament we have today is essentially a forgery -- at least where the names of God are involved!

    Proof or evidence of this conspiracy? There is none. Does God Almighty have the power to preserve His name in whatever language He chooses? Of course He does! And it is patently obvious that He choose to preserve the New Testament Scriptures in Greek -- not Hebrew! The fact that Jesus and the apostles all spoke Greek is another nail in the coffin of these "language-worshippers" and conspiracy addicts.

    We need not worry about ancient conspiracies to destroy the word, or "name" of God. As Christ said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17); "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

    Peter wrote that the word of God "liveth and abideth for ever" (I Pet.1:23). The word of God, which He inspired to be preserved, is in all essential and crucial respects, inspired and correctly preserved, to all generations. As Paul wrote to Timothy, "ALL SCRIPTURE" -- and that includes the NAMES AND TITLES USED FOR GOD, in both the Old and New Testaments -- "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD [Greek, "God-breathed"], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (II Tim.3:16).

    Wouldn't it seem awfully strange that if God only intended all mankind to use only the Hebrew names of God and the Messiah, that He Himself divided all mankind into many language groups at the tower of Babel? Wouldn't it also seem strange that this same God, who created mankind, and later gave him different languages (Gen.11), required that in order to receive salvation one would have to know, and pronounce "correctly," the Hebrew name of God and Christ -- and that ONLY THE HEBREW PRONUNCIATION WOULD SAVE ANYBODY?

    What kind of God would that be? Generations of man have come and gone, and even the Jews say today that they have forgotten exactly how to pronounce the YHVH or Tetragrammaton of the Old Testament name of God! "Jehovah" is obviously in error, yet many use that name today. "Yahweh" is the more recently "scholarly" pronunciation suggested by many; yet historical evidence indicates that is just an "approximation" of the divine name, and "Yahveh" would be closer to the truth.

    Others claim "Yahuveh" is more accurate. And on and on the argument goes -- where it will stop, nobody knows! Some claim "Christ" is a pagan (Greek) term, and that "Jesus" comes from the Greek god "Zeus." Both claims are patently false. "Christ" is merely the English form of the Greek word Christos, which merely means "Anointed" (just as the Hebrew word Moshiach literally means "Messiah"). The name "Jesus" comes from the Greek Iesous, and means "Saviour," just as does the Hebrew original Yeshua.

    The important thing in God's sight is not whether we pronounce the syllables and consonants of His name in some precise manner directed by heaven. But rather, whether we love Him with all our heart, mind and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. As Jesus Christ said: "For this is the (whole) law and the prophets." I could go on and on about this but hey......I'm sitting this dance out,my mans waiting for me, so Do cut in.
     
  10. info-moetry

    info-moetry STAFF STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,724
    Likes Received:
    6,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    A+ technician
    Location:
    The rotten Apple
    Ratings:
    +6,486
    peace

    j'hiah (nice to meet u)...........I can name a couple of times where he sinned, it's in all four of your ghost-spells or gospels as they're called.

    another was when he was baptized..........baptism is for the remission of SINS.....is it not?

    It is when he cried out on the cross "why hast my God forsaken me" for one already knowing he was born to do this work and at that final moment he doubted God...(sin)...........On a side note this could also mean that it wasn't really Jesus on the cross!

    Miz Linda Linda (nice to meet U)

    To quote the book of psalms which is a plagerized version of the sayings of Ankhenaten the Egyptian pharoah.......

    & besides that The King James Version was authorized by WHO?

    "King James Stuart of England was a blatant homosexual
    who wore the same clothes for days
    he used to chase men around his court
    at a time when all of england were afraid to bathe"

    there is nothing pure about his or rather Shake-Spears version because this is who he hired since Shakespear already had a bible previously published. King James was called "the drunkest fool of Christianity"......

    We must thoroughly investigate what our enemies put on our plates to believe in! This book was given to blacks openly during a time when it was ILLEGAL for blacks to read or certainly have a bible.

    I'm sure i'll hear back but for now

    I leave u in peace
     
Loading...