Forgery in the Bible

Arnie Manitoba · Jan 24, 2014

Tropical Islander said:
Forgery is a verk strong word. When does it apply?

Let's do an example where statements are made that directly oppose each other, like for example in:

Is the fall, recorded in Isaiah 14 about Lucifer [as the KJV and Hebrew text indicates] or Jesus, the morning star, as the NIV and NASB imply?

Give me your ideas, what you think about that contoversy. AND Who created that controversy?

In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’:

et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

explained better here .... https://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations

Tropical Islander · Jan 24, 2014

No 'Semitic conceptions', but Divine revelation of Him Who knows what Satan 'said in his heart'

Take note of his five 'I wills' that were the assertion of the creature’s will in opposition to the will of the Creator that brought about his downfall, and so an archangel became the devil. Cast down from the place of power and favor which he had enjoyed, he now became the untiring enemy of God and man, and down through the millennia since has exerted every conceivable device to ruin mankind and rob God of the glory due to His name.

Many translations show the origin of Lucifer to become Satan. And many hide it, by taking out his original name - and the result is that many 'modern religions' hate Satan, but think of Lucifer as the 'true light'. Read Pike, or ask any top level freemason. They all fall for it. Not to mention Wicca, top UN 'spiritualists' and even some "Christians".

Quantrill · Jan 24, 2014

Wormwood said:
Neither does the term "biblical scholar" imply someone who is all head knowledge with a lack of love for the Lord and the Scriptures. I think you are missing the point here. We do not have original documents from Moses, Paul, Peter, John, etc. We have copies of copies of copies. Some of these copies date back a few hundred years and some date back almost two thousand years to the second century. So, let me ask you....if you wanted to know what someone wrote 2,000 years ago and you had 10,000 copies of the letter they wrote....5,000 of which were copied in 1,000 AD, 700 which were copied in 700AD and 300 which were copied in 150AD, which would you trust more? If a story is found in none of the ones written in 150AD, in half of the ones written in 700AD and in 90% of the ones written in 1,000AD, would you think that was a story in the original document or not? I would think not. That is how textual criticism works.

As Christians, our aim should always and only be to know the truth...not to cling to things simply because of our personal predilections or preferences. Most of all the textual discrepancies deal with verb tenses and minor additions or subtractions such as one text having "Christ" and another having "Christ Jesus." Even in the areas where a section has been added that is not found in any texts that exist in the first few hundred years after Christ, nor have they been referenced by any of the church fathers, no one is saying the events didn't happen. We are just saying it was likely not in the original autograph.

Did 'textual criticism' determine if the passage in question carried with it the inspiration of God?

If 'textual criticism' determines the story of the woman caught in adultry shouldn't be there, does that mean the story was not inspired?

Sorry, I don't trust your 'textual critics' to be able to makes such a determination.

Quantrill

Tropical Islander said:
Hey Quantrill,

That is a little weak position that "we wouldn't know what God is saying" - of course we know. Jesus himself told us:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

simple facts as these are required to notice, and that is just one of hundreds of examples. Once you dig into this theme you are "gone for weeks even months". Before that I would not even dare to compare two different documents and declare them both as true. That concept of 'opposites are equals - and both origin from the same source' would be trashed in any court, earthly or heavenly.

If your determination is that there is a contridiction in the Bible, then you don't know what God is saying or trying to teach us.

Yes, Jesus is the bright and morning star. Where is the contridiction?

Quantrill

Madad21 · Jan 24, 2014

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this yet in their reply I only read a handful so far. but there is a verse in 1 John that we only find recorded in the KJV and NKJV but not so much in other translations because it was said to be added later by the church. the accusation being that the old church felt there was a sever lack of Trinity proofs in the Bible so it was added.
However the text itself when analysed still does little to prove the existence of a trinity for anyone determined not to believe.
the text has purposely been excluded from other translations

1 John 5:7
King James Version (KJV)

[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Arnie Manitoba · Jan 24, 2014

.

Need a light ???

Get Lucifers !!!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22lucifer+matches%22&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US

fficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=AJXiUqXJBYWCyQGbr4CgCw&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1499&bih=679&dpr=0.9

Tropical Islander · Jan 24, 2014

Quantrill said:
If your determination is that there is a contridiction in the Bible, then you don't know what God is saying or trying to teach us.

Yes, Jesus is the bright and morning star. Where is the contridiction?

Quantrill

the contradiction is in the NIV and NSAB where in Isaiah 14 the morning star (that you correctly identified to be Jesus) is falling from heaven.

Quantrill · Jan 25, 2014

Tropical Islander said:
the contradiction is in the NIV and NSAB where in Isaiah 14 the morning star (that you correctly identified to be Jesus) is falling from heaven.

I identified Jesus Christ as the bright and morning star. I did not say He was the morning star in Isaiah 14. He is the bright and morning star as stated in Rev. 22:16.

Again, where is the contridiction. Does the NIV or the NSAB say Is. 14 pertains to Jesus Christ?

Quantrill

Tropical Islander · Jan 25, 2014

Once you assume there is more than one morning star, or the spirit that is represented in the term, you basically left the field of logic where you would be able to find truth. You have arrived in the world of relativity theories.

Quantrill · Jan 26, 2014

Tropical Islander said:
Once you assume there is more than one morning star, or the spirit that is represented in the term, you basically left the field of logic where you would be able to find truth. You have arrived in the world of relativity theories.

In other words, there is no contridiction. Other than one you made up.

Quantrill

Dodo_David · Jan 26, 2014

Quantrill said:
Did 'textual criticism' determine if the passage in question carried with it the inspiration of God?

If 'textual criticism' determines the story of the woman caught in adultry shouldn't be there, does that mean the story was not inspired?

Sorry, I don't trust your 'textual critics' to be able to makes such a determination.

If a story wasn't put in the Bible by biblical authors, but rather was put in after the apostolic era by an unknown scribe, then what evidence do we have that the story is valid?

Quantrill · Jan 26, 2014

Dodo_David said:
If a story wasn't put in the Bible by biblical authors, but rather was put in after the apostolic era by an unknown scribe, then what evidence do we have that the story is valid?

What you call 'biblical authors' makes no sense.

Sounds like a silly argument. I did not use the word 'valid'. I used the word 'inspired'. As in inspired by God. Does your textual critic determine the inspirataion of those texts he says he thinks should not be there?

Of course not. Begs the question why? Should be an important point. Is he even capeable of making such a determination? He says the story is not in the oldest. But, the oldest manuscripts are not the originals either.

Quantrill

DaDad · Jan 26, 2014

snr5557 said:
I've only begun to learn about this, so I am by no means an expert

But I found this very interesting, and there are Bible scholars who have found that there is a chance that people have forged parts of the Bible.

Also, there are parts of the Bible that were added later too!

What do you think about this topic, like your thoughts and feelings towards it? I find it very interesting, so I naturally just want to share it with everyone.

Yeah, I got a "forgery" for you:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel died in the FIRST year of Cyrus, -- but Daniel 10:1 says he was still alive in the THIRD year of Cyrus. Ok, this may not be a forgery, but clearly it's a contradiction. OR IS IT?

DaDad

Wormwood · Jan 27, 2014

Quantrill said:
Did 'textual criticism' determine if the passage in question carried with it the inspiration of God?

If 'textual criticism' determines the story of the woman caught in adultry shouldn't be there, does that mean the story was not inspired?

Sorry, I don't trust your 'textual critics' to be able to makes such a determination.

Quantrill

What is being determined is what was actually written by the "inspired" authors of the Bible. I dont believe in inspired translations or translators. I believe in the inspiration of the authors who originally wrote the texts.

DaDad · Jan 27, 2014

Wormwood said:
I believe in the inspiration of the authors who originally wrote the texts.

Hi Wormwood,

I have a question for you in this regard:

In most translations, Daniel 9:25 cites "seven and sixty-two" to an anointed one, as though it were the value of ~sixty-nine~.

NKJV

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street[c] shall be built again, and the wall,[d] even in troublesome times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

Newton says this does "violence" to scripture, "a way of numbering used by no nation".

However, the RSV says "seven" to an anointed one, and then a second time span of "sixty-two" to a second anointed one.

RSV
25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing;

Which text is authentic?

With Best Regards,
DaDad

UppsalaDragby · Jan 27, 2014

DaDad said:
Yeah, I got a "forgery" for you:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel died in the FIRST year of Cyrus, -- but Daniel 10:1 says he was still alive in the THIRD year of Cyrus. Ok, this may not be a forgery, but clearly it's a contradiction. OR IS IT?

DaDad

Daniel 1:21 does not say that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus, but that he "remained" (i.e. in Babylon) until that year.

Dodo_David · Jan 27, 2014

Quantrill said:
What you call 'biblical authors' makes no sense.

Sounds like a silly argument. I did not use the word 'valid'. I used the word 'inspired'. As in inspired by God. Does your textual critic determine the inspirataion of those texts he says he thinks should not be there?

Of course not. Begs the question why? Should be an important point. Is he even capeable of making such a determination? He says the story is not in the oldest. But, the oldest manuscripts are not the originals either.

Quantrill

So, if a scribe who lived after the apostolic era felt "inspired" to add something to the Bible, then that is acceptable to you? :huh:

Quantrill · Jan 27, 2014

Wormwood said:
What is being determined is what was actually written by the "inspired" authors of the Bible. I dont believe in inspired translations or translators. I believe in the inspiration of the authors who originally wrote the texts.

Then you don't have an inspired Bible.

Quantrill

DaDad · Jan 27, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Daniel 1:21 does not say that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus, but that he "remained" (i.e. in Babylon) until that year.

Hi UD,

NKJV
21 Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.

Please note that the dictionary defines "until" as a cessation, not a continuation.

Secondly, per Calvin:

http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom24.vii.xx.html?bcb=right

[SIZE=12pt]Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]היה[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt], haiah, by to be “broken;” [/SIZE]

So where Calvin acknowledged that 1:21 states Daniel DIED in the FIRST year of Cyrus, he then acquiesces his refelation to an incorrect understanding of 10:1. . -- So now I ask, how are 1:21 and 10:1 BOTH correct AS WRITTEN?!?

With Best Regards,
DaDad

Quantrill · Jan 27, 2014

Dodo_David said:
So, if a scribe who lived after the apostolic era felt "inspired" to add something to the Bible, then that is acceptable to you? :huh:

No one can add or take away from the Bible. To do so is never acceptable to me. However for you to say, certain verses were added, because they are not in the oldest doesn't prove they were added. The oldest are not original either. It just proves they were not in the oldest that we have.

Quantrill

DaDad · Jan 27, 2014

Quantrill said:
No one can add or take away from the Bible, ...

Hi Qantrill,

Rev. 22
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 andy if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophec, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Did I miss your intent?!?

With Best Regards,
DaDad

Forgery in the Bible

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Boast in Christ

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Melmacian in human guise

New Member

Member

Chaps

Member

New Member

Melmacian in human guise

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads