Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Electronic Harassment / Mind Control / Subliminal Programing > The Nature of Matrix Religions and what they mean.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 26-08-2015, 02:42 PM   #1
sandy10
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Question for people quoting the bible

I have noticed bible quotes on here, some by Christians some not.

The question I want to ask is, to those who do, why do you quote the bible using the King James version of the bible, instead of a modern translation?

No one speaks in thees and thous and hasts anymore, don't know if they did at the time it was written but not anymore, so why quote a translation that uses language that is difficult for people to read?
sandy10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2015, 03:02 PM   #2
white light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: B-lighty
Posts: 14,765
Likes: 3,484 (2,438 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
I have noticed bible quotes on here, some by Christians some not.

The question I want to ask is, to those who do, why do you quote the bible using the King James version of the bible, instead of a modern translation?

No one speaks in thees and thous and hasts anymore, don't know if they did at the time it was written but not anymore, so why quote a translation that uses language that is difficult for people to read?
Perhaps 'tis a tradition that hast a certain comforting orthodoxy lending gravitas to said biblical text.


.

Last edited by white light; 26-08-2015 at 03:08 PM. Reason: s
white light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2015, 03:23 PM   #3
silent revolution
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The vale of Tamesis. Love is life and life is love.
Posts: 5,440
Likes: 1,059 (499 Posts)
Default

There's plenty of British people who do still talk with those words. Yorkshire is one example of that.

Peace, love, harmony and wisdom friend
__________________
.................................-~*'.It's Only a Dream.'*.~-.
silent revolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2015, 03:33 PM   #4
sandy10
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by white light View Post
Perhaps 'tis a tradition that hast a certain comforting orthodoxy lending gravitas to said biblical text.


.
It probably has something to it, I also thought it was the version they were raised with. I have found myself looking for the chapter and verse and searching for it in a modern translation version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silent revolution View Post
There's plenty of British people who do still talk with those words. Yorkshire is one example of that.

Peace, love, harmony and wisdom friend
Haha yes there probably are. Now, will the summer hold out, perhaps I should visit Bronte country and drink it in!
sandy10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2015, 04:10 PM   #5
de la source
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Anywhere and anytime
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 390 (262 Posts)
Default

No particular reason. When one knows that "sacred" texts are metaphores and allegories about the mind insteaf of real people, one doesn't favour a version.

Last edited by de la source; 26-08-2015 at 04:11 PM.
de la source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2015, 04:12 PM   #6
muhammad bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 494 (347 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
I have noticed bible quotes on here, some by Christians some not.

The question I want to ask is, to those who do, why do you quote the bible using the King James version of the bible, instead of a modern translation?

No one speaks in thees and thous and hasts anymore, don't know if they did at the time it was written but not anymore, so why quote a translation that uses language that is difficult for people to read?
The reason is because that is what accurately reflects the Christian message as has been taught for centuries.

Not some whitewashed new age nonsense designed to bury all the controversial verses that Christians are ashamed of.
muhammad bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 08:05 PM   #7
megahertz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 33 (30 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
I have noticed bible quotes on here, some by Christians some not.

The question I want to ask is, to those who do, why do you quote the bible using the King James version of the bible, instead of a modern translation?

No one speaks in thees and thous and hasts anymore, don't know if they did at the time it was written but not anymore, so why quote a translation that uses language that is difficult for people to read?
For myself it was the first English Translation and that came with a copyright so all other 'Bibles' had to alter the text to a certain degree before it would be qualified as a 'new book'.
In their rather long preface they mention they used the original Greek for the NT and that was translated by Scribes that learned Latin as children. The OT was translated from the original Hebrew by Jews who were living in Jerusalem so both parts should have been perfect copies. That doesn't make the book divine, the format in the book is what makes it divine because 40 different Scribes all touch on the same topic without ever revealing the full context of what the passages is talking about. All topics are mentioned in at least 3 different places so to alter it all 3 would have to be changed. The most important prophecy is the return and that has more than a few dozen references so altering it would be even harder. So far the best way seems to be to not mention them, let alone cover them in any detail.

Last edited by megahertz; 27-08-2015 at 08:05 PM.
megahertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 08:41 PM   #8
muhammad bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 494 (347 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by megahertz View Post
For myself it was the first English Translation and that came with a copyright so all other 'Bibles' had to alter the text to a certain degree before it would be qualified as a 'new book'.
In their rather long preface they mention they used the original Greek for the NT and that was translated by Scribes that learned Latin as children. The OT was translated from the original Hebrew by Jews who were living in Jerusalem so both parts should have been perfect copies. That doesn't make the book divine, the format in the book is what makes it divine because 40 different Scribes all touch on the same topic without ever revealing the full context of what the passages is talking about. All topics are mentioned in at least 3 different places so to alter it all 3 would have to be changed. The most important prophecy is the return and that has more than a few dozen references so altering it would be even harder. So far the best way seems to be to not mention them, let alone cover them in any detail.
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of this.

In most jurisdictions copyright lasts for the life of the author plus some time after, around fifty years.

I checked on the KJV and it appears that the British Government claims, through statute, the rights to this.

I wonder if Yahweh is aware that someone else is claiming copyright to his book?
muhammad bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 09:11 PM   #9
sandy10
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by megahertz View Post
For myself it was the first English Translation and that came with a copyright so all other 'Bibles' had to alter the text to a certain degree before it would be qualified as a 'new book'.
In their rather long preface they mention they used the original Greek for the NT and that was translated by Scribes that learned Latin as children. The OT was translated from the original Hebrew by Jews who were living in Jerusalem so both parts should have been perfect copies. That doesn't make the book divine, the format in the book is what makes it divine because 40 different Scribes all touch on the same topic without ever revealing the full context of what the passages is talking about. All topics are mentioned in at least 3 different places so to alter it all 3 would have to be changed. The most important prophecy is the return and that has more than a few dozen references so altering it would be even harder. So far the best way seems to be to not mention them, let alone cover them in any detail.
How interesting.

I read into this more.

So the newer versions are based on texts from Egypt, and some claim it is not the same type of translation due to the Gnostic influence on Alexandria, rather than the Greek text.

There are 5 divisions of king james bible version advocates

"I Like the KJV Best"
"The Textual Argument"
"Received Text Only"
"The Inspired KJV Group"
"The KJV As New Revelation"

Something will have to change eventually. Language changes as a natural progression and the language of English 400 years ago will become more and more abstract. Consider going way back and reading Anglo Saxon for those who don't see this is a problem.

Last edited by sandy10; 27-08-2015 at 09:13 PM.
sandy10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 09:40 PM   #10
truthy
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 357
Likes: 108 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
I have noticed bible quotes on here, some by Christians some not.

The question I want to ask is, to those who do, why do you quote the bible using the King James version of the bible, instead of a modern translation?

No one speaks in thees and thous and hasts anymore, don't know if they did at the time it was written but not anymore, so why quote a translation that uses language that is difficult for people to read?
i suppose there's a pretty simple reason: it just looks and sounds cool.

truthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 09:55 PM   #11
muhammad bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,343
Likes: 494 (347 Posts)
Default

Well, I think we've all been put in our place.



Back to the topic. I would add one more reason to favor the KJV.

It is the one to read in order to understand most classical Western literature, such as Shakespeare.
muhammad bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2015, 09:59 PM   #12
sandy10
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muhammad bear View Post
Well, I think we've all been put in our place.



Back to the topic. I would add one more reason to favor the KJV.

It is the one to read in order to understand most classical Western literature, such as Shakespeare.
That is a good point.

My thoughts at the start of the thread were along the lines of, why not communicate the message of Christianity in a way people understand, to put it this way, if it was spoken in the language Jesus used, no one would get it, hence the point of translations in the first place.
sandy10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 02:55 AM   #13
megahertz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 33 (30 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muhammad bear View Post
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of this.

In most jurisdictions copyright lasts for the life of the author plus some time after, around fifty years.

I checked on the KJV and it appears that the British Government claims, through statute, the rights to this.

I wonder if Yahweh is aware that someone else is claiming copyright to his book?
Daniel:8 tells us the ones given the truth will corrupt. By 450ADS the RCC was using a Latin Bible that only they could read and explain. (rather than all the flock having one and chatting about wherever they happened to be.

The message was meant to misunderstood by most people is also one of the prophecies.

The copyright gives the reader the right to copy as little or as munch as they want. The other versions have change 'all flesh' into 'all people' to get that rating. They do not mean the same thing, one means all people will be made alive for the new earth verses, all flesh means all people all birds and all animals will also be alive in the new earth.
The messages are vastly different with just that one change, fortunately there are other references that point to all flesh rather than just 'all people'. Who are you supposed to believe, the original version or the one that is easier to read?
megahertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 02:59 AM   #14
megahertz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 33 (30 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthy View Post
i suppose there's a pretty simple reason: it just looks and sounds cool.

Try putting an 'enter' after each comma or whatever. It makes the sentences short so they are easy to understand. It make us the child in case you are wondering and the Scripture is the 'adult' in the room.
megahertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 03:07 AM   #15
megahertz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 33 (30 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
That is a good point.

My thoughts at the start of the thread were along the lines of, why not communicate the message of Christianity in a way people understand, to put it this way, if it was spoken in the language Jesus used, no one would get it, hence the point of translations in the first place.
That is why it is called a 'translation' and I'm pretty sure the Jews in Jerusalem used the correct terms in the correct places. If you ask some of their experts they will say that is you are going to use an English Bible and argue Scripture the KJV1611 is the only English version they would say was up to the task. The others are good for defining a certain version of what salvation means.
Understanding is passage based rather than verse based.
Hebrews:12 is about what group of people? (test question so take your time)
megahertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 03:11 AM   #16
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

the KJV is certainly the most poetic of the translations.
it is a product of english renaissance high art.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 03:23 AM   #17
megahertz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 33 (30 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy10 View Post
How interesting.

I read into this more.

So the newer versions are based on texts from Egypt, and some claim it is not the same type of translation due to the Gnostic influence on Alexandria, rather than the Greek text.

There are 5 divisions of king james bible version advocates

"I Like the KJV Best"
"The Textual Argument"
"Received Text Only"
"The Inspired KJV Group"
"The KJV As New Revelation"

Something will have to change eventually. Language changes as a natural progression and the language of English 400 years ago will become more and more abstract. Consider going way back and reading Anglo Saxon for those who don't see this is a problem.
If you want an example of what it will eventually promote read Da:9 of the Jerusalem Bible. (as will the one below)

Ga:1:6-12:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another;
but there be some that trouble you,
and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we,
or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
As we said before,
so say I now again,
If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men,
or God?
or do I seek to please men?
for if I yet pleased men,
I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Last edited by megahertz; 28-08-2015 at 03:24 AM.
megahertz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 07:40 AM   #18
fairyprincess
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The city at the edge of the world
Posts: 12,554
Likes: 2,459 (1,357 Posts)
Default

My question is why the KJV version?

Why go for a version that you know as been 're-written' and 're-translated' when an earlier version is more likely to have a better understanding of the lords will, it being nearer 'the source.'

By having all these versions how can you be sure which one is closer to 'gods' intentions?
__________________
"if you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." (Jesus Christ, gospel of thomas.)

Love is natural, Hate is taught....
fairyprincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 11:16 AM   #19
oneriver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 2,983 (1,667 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fairyprincess View Post
My question is why the KJV version?

Why go for a version that you know as been 're-written' and 're-translated' when an earlier version is more likely to have a better understanding of the lords will, it being nearer 'the source.'

By having all these versions how can you be sure which one is closer to 'gods' intentions?
It sounds so much more 'authoritative' using 'olde english', no?
__________________
“Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time?" That the river is everywhere at the same time, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the current, in the ocean and in the mountains, everywhere and that the present only exists for it, not the shadow of the past nor the shadow of the future.” ? Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha

Y Gwir Erbyn Y Byd ("Truth Against the World") - Druidic Motto
oneriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 12:16 PM   #20
chunky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,016
Likes: 214 (150 Posts)
Default

I like it because it contains more swearing than the others, these are two of my favourite verses.

Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...27&version=KJV

And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...11&version=KJV
__________________
Being religious is like being in an abusive relationship. God says - obey me: don't love anyone else: I know what you're thinking: if you leave me I will punish you: you're a terrible person without me: you'll never find anyone as good as me: don't listen to anyone who doesn't understand us: of course I love you!

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
chunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.