Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=3366&start_row=1


In Judah

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 25
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 2/8/2009 7:09:26 PM
Reply


InI know and accept that In Judah,God is known. The bible,prophecy and history testify the truth of this

Looking at two bible translations of the book of Hosea,ini read in the King James version(KJV), and comparing with the New International Version.(NIV)

Lets start from Hosea 11.7

KJV
And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him.

NIV
My people are determined to turn from me. Even if they call to the Most High, he will by no means exalt them

the next verses are almost the same,so i wont deal with it here

lets go to Hosea 11.12, which is the real point of this reasoning

KJV
Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: BUT JUDAH YET RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS.

NIV
Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel with deceit. AND JUDAH IS UNRULY AGAINST GOD, EVEN AGAINST THE FAITHFUL HOLY ONE

I wonder why they changed that

Blessed Ites
Rastafari


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 2/8/2009 9:01:05 PM
Reply

I have noticed many things changed in newer versions. And sometimes it is not something where they said the opposite of what was said in the King James, sometimes the verse is talking about two completely different, unrelated things.

Most of the time when I see differences, what it says in the King James version makes the most sense. It would be nice if there could be an English version that is accurate.


Ark I

Itinual Praises unto Jah RasTafarI Haile Selassie I Menen I


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 2/8/2009 10:04:48 PM
Reply

This reasoning came at a good time.

It was I birthday on Friday and I got a gift certificate for a book store from I wife's parents. I was wondering what book I should buy and after reading this reasoning I decided to buy the "Comparative Study Bible", which shows the King James Version, Amplified Bible, New American Standard and New International Version side by side, so that they can be compared.

From what I read, it seems that all of the bibles have their good and bad translations, so this comparative bible might be useful to compare at least a few versions. The Amplified Bible is interesting. When a word from the original language has a few possible translations, it writes all the possible translations. So it could reveal more than one meaning of the verse, or let people figure out which meaning they think the word was supposed to be translated to.

I will let the I them know what I think about the comparative Bible when I get it.

Ark I

Itinual Praises unto Jah RasTafarI Haile Selassie I Menen I




Messenger: Yaa Asantewa Sent: 2/9/2009 6:38:22 AM
Reply

Morning ights, blessed love RasTafari family. It is pleasant to dwell in Judah (heart). Heart of One, Selassie I first!

I am very intrigued by the reasoning and I look forward to more elaboration particularly when we will get the benefit of consultation in the Comparitive Study Bible.

My ights relating to the reasoning is to look at the historical motivation to produce the staggered translations. The historical context of the production of the KJV is popular knowledge, I am not certain as to that of the NIV.

King James being the Scottish inheritor of the English throne (variety of politico-geographical wranglings) and also the nephew descendant of the Scottish arm of the monks of the knights templar (see Roslyn church, Scotland). With some basic understanding of the religious fundamentals of the knights templar, we know they have some sort of 'secret' identification of self; and I think accordingly the 'code' they may use in the translation of the word is not so much in the literal bastardisation of the word, but in the inference and interpretation thereof. Also dedicating much time, money and energy on instituting a church (Church of England / protestantism / presbyterianism, etc) for the proliferation of the specific INTERPRETATIONS of the word, as translated. We can see through the literature (Shakespeare, etc), politics (monarchists and revolutionaries), and international relations (ships, the oceans, conquering the 'new world', continuation of africa invasion) of the said time that the templars are comfortable relating to themselves as saints, they refer to God (only they know of whom they are talking), and other timeless characters such as Ephraim, Israel, etc... it is more a question of whom they are relating the identity to.

So, that is my idea of why the King James Version can seem more direct and reliable in translation at this time. At the time of the translation many people of England were totally illiterate, so the considerations of access which the scholars had were quite different than those in charge of the International Version. And then within the International Version, we would need to consider the stance and perspective of the group that thought it necessary to initiate an new version and change the interpretation as well as the translation. My ights relating specifically to this points again to perspectives on the timeless characters. Who is Ephraim to the New Internationalists? Who is Judah? Clearly they are either different from those identified by the King James group... or perhaps they are the same, but the two groups have different opinions on them.

"though they called them to the most high, none at all would exalt him"

"if they call to the Most High".

Here the emphasis is on the action of the people; one thinks that the people will not exalt HIM, the other says that even if they did HIM would not exalt them. The question of discrepancy for me, as in the 11.12 verse, remains who is the first "they" in the KJV line (11.7), because these people are ignored in the NIV. Is is Judah? Who the NIV translates the KJ version; "Judah yet ruleth with God"; as, they are "unruly against God"?

What might be the issue over Judah amongst biblical scholars and translators? lol ;)


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 2/9/2009 9:25:50 AM
Reply

One thing I read about the NIV version is that it is not a word for word version but instead a thought for thought version. So depending on how they have interpreted a piece of scripture, it is sometimes the right thought and other times wrong, and sometimes only one of several thoughts. I don't like it that a group of people would write the Bible in a way that they write what they thought the original writing was trying to say, instead of just plainly writing what it said, so that people can sight the inspiration the scripture was supposed to give them at the time they read it. I know that sometimes I have found certain parts in the Bible that offer more than one layer of interpretation and each layer is fruitful. I think the Bible was meant to have more than one layer of teaching and it should be left as close as possible to the original words, so people can see all the teachings, not just part of it.

Ark I

Itinual Praises unto Jah RasTafarI Haile Selassie I Menen I


Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 2/9/2009 2:47:41 PM
Reply

Blessed Love, Rastafari

Well, first let i say this, this verse about Ephraim and Judah and Israel, i first heard it in a speech and after reading it the speaker said something like, this is only a small change, not much importance. But ofcourse they do not know the Lion of Judah. But for i, this was of extreme importance.
We also have to consider the timing. Haile Selassie I was born on earth in 1892.
When was the translation made that all modern bible translations are based on? 1881.
It is from this time that all these new translations started to spring up. Until the then for 1800 years, everything was based on the Recieved text

Coming to the KJV of the bible, there are many critisisms. But what ones need to overs is that the KJV was based on the recieved text, ie.the textus recepticus, and we need to overs that all bible translations were based on the recieved text, that is until the last century when they started talking about new translations


Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 2/9/2009 3:45:25 PM
Reply


Now Ark I and Yaa, the i them bring up two very important points.

Ark I said, "One thing I read about the NIV version is that it is not a word for word version but instead a thought for thought version."

Empress Yaa said, "we would need to consider the stance and perspective of the group that thought it necessary to initiate an new version and change the interpretation as well as the translation"

very important

So let us look at the "stance and perspective" of this group
Let us deal with two people
Brooke Westcott and Anthony Hort, the two main culprits (or heroes to some)
Luckily, we have "The Life And Letters Of Fenton John Anthony Hort" and "The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott", published by their respective sons. I will put up some excerpts from the books that i found on the net

First it is enough to say that they were deeply interested in "ghosts" and psychic phenomena and its investigation.
"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild"

On Roman Catholicism
" . . . almost all Anglican statements are a mixture in various proportions of the true and the Romish view . . . the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical."

They were proponents of evolution and not creation

And this is a very telling quote i think, Hort writes in a letter

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first "

Change it a little hear and there, no one will notice, but when all the chnages are taken together, well you have an altogether different bible

BUt for i, to see what changes they have made in the bible is the best form of sighting what they are doing

SO lets find a few more isamples







Messenger: Ras KebreAB Sent: 2/9/2009 4:31:16 PM
Reply


NIV
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one

KJV
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
....................................................................

NIV
For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners
(call them where?. call them to what? He just came to call sinners??)

KJV
for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(sight, so in the NIV,the concept of Judgement is removed)
...................................................................

KJV
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV
this line is completly removed
.................................................................

NIV
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life
(belives what???)

KJV
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
..................................................................


We could go on all day



Ark I, i dren, i pray the i had a blessed earthday, Give thanks Rastafari
Has the i already bought the book that you mentioned?
In line of this reasoning, i would have recommended the book , Revision Revised by Dean Burgon, a very interesting read, full of information

Blessed Love
Rastafari


Messenger: Eleazar1234 Sent: 2/9/2009 5:42:12 PM
Reply

Ras KebreAB,

Here is something that Eric Jon Phelps, the Jesuit conspiracy historian says about Wescott and Hort:

Martin: What compelled you to write this book? What started it for you?
Phelps: I was always taught to be a patriot, a patriot first and foremost—America first, and everybody else second. Later, when I came to know the Lord, at 17, I realized the Bible taught the same thing—that the Lord had instituted nations. The Lord never instituted world governments; that’s always the result of the Devil’s working.


So, being a patriot and a nationalist— believing in national sovereignty—I was saved at 17, went into the Air Force, was garrisoned in a nuclear weapons area for three years in Germany, came back and started to go to Bible college.


When I went to Bible college, the issue of the King James came up, as far as it being an archaic version. And that’s what I used and I had never given it a thought. Well, some were using NIV, some NASB, and I thought: “Well, maybe it’s just a modern version of what I have here.” And I thought: “Well, if they want to use that, that’s fine, but I’ll use the King James.”


I found that the underlying Greek text for the King James, the Textus Receptus, was the Greek text of the Reformation. It represents 95% of the existing manuscripts that we have today. The Greek text that underlies all these other versions—there’s a Westcott and Hort Greek text, which I then discovered was really a conspiracy to adulterate the Textus Receptus in England, led by Brooke Foss Westcott and Anthony Hort, who were Maryolitors, Mary-worshippers.


Later, I found out that they had invited Cardinal Newman to sit in on the revision committee. Well, Cardinal Newman was a traitor to the Anglican Church, with his Track 90, which blew-off the Anglican Church. He then left England and he was then a Cardinal by Pius IX.


So, here we have Cardinal Newman, and E. B. Pusey, had been invited to sit on thisrevision committee, the end result being a Greek text that had been produced that was pro-Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is the basis for the Jesuit’s Reheims-Douay text, that was put out in 1582, that was attempting to rival William Tyndale’s English text, which later became the King James Version of 1611.


So now I see this awful Jesuit hand in my Bible college, attempting to deprive me of the Word of God, the authorized version of 1611, in it’s present edition of 1769. Now I thought “Well, here the Jesuits are, what else have they done?” And the next thing I was led to was the Lincoln assassination. And I can remember reading Burke McCarty’s The Suppressed Truth About The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln,
and weeping in the back room, when I was in college.

Eric Jon Phelps has good information about the Jesuits but some of his views are slightly racist.

Ises be to JAH RASTAFARI


Messenger: Eleazar1234 Sent: 2/9/2009 5:45:18 PM
Reply

Ark I,

Happy EarthStrong!

JAH BLESS


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 25

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I