MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
King James Bible (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nobody's (quite) suggesting that the worthies on the KJB committee are arch-conspirators acting alone and with malice aforethought. They are clearly acting (wittingly or unwittingly) as the last in a long line. It seems reasonable to extend that line at least as far back as Wycliff, a deeply mysterious gent. In fact the whole nature of "English Protestantism" is problematical in the extreme. After all, the other Protestant states seemed perfectly happy taking their version off-the-shelf from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or whoever, but only the English decided to make up their own version. The Scots were technically Calvinist (via Knox) but James' relationship with the Scottish Protestant Hierarchy was always highly ambivalent. Is it simply a coincidence (ie just the 'engine of history') that the Stuarts spent the whole of their reign trying to dovetail English and Scottish religions? To the point of losing their thrones.

But there seems to be a wider picture. The "Masoretic Text" looks as though it is the "safe version", one that the Church and the moderns can use for their translation, but that there is an older, weirder version that Wycliff and his successors had access to. Does this have a connection to the even more fundamental Gnostic/Pauline split?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

...since the original source cannot possibly be ambiguous about such a very clear distinction.

This is a totally erroneous assumption.

I'd make a simple guess that the Hebrew word for jackal means doleful (I expect most animals are named after some characteristic). It all depends on how sure the translator is of which animal is identified as 'doleful' (or indeed whether the context intends the animal at all - although in this case it seems pretty obvious

The correct assumption, Bri, but you spoiled it by adding the last statement
.

Here is an example of just how misleading the original can be:
Joshua 3:16
The waters coming down from above stood and rose up in a heap far off at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan and those flowing down to the sea of Arabah, the Salt Sea were wholly cut off; and the people passed over opposite Jericho.

The water coming down from Malah (place name) stood, they rose up in one dam extending from Wadd (place name) at Adam, the city that is beside Raznah, and those flowing down west of Ghurbah (place name), west of Milhah, were wholly cut off; and the people passed over opposite Rakhyah (place name).

The KJV of the Bible is based on the Masoretic Text, which varies significantly from the Septuagint version in Greek. There were in fact at least four versions of the Old Testament all of which still exist today.
    1. The oldest is the Old Testament in its original Hebrew, which few scholars ever revert to for transliteration.
    2. The Septuagint the version transcribed in Alexandria, Egypt was the main source of the early Christian church.
    3. The Latin Vulgate which was a Latin translation of the Septuagint is recognised as the least reliable translation
    4. The Masoretic Text was compiled by Jews who supposedly transcribed the original Hebrew Old Testament with the 'correct' vocalisation.
Old Hebrew was a consonant-only language based mainly on a three consonant ROOT of verbs and nouns. Archaic Canaanite/Hebrew had a limited vocabulary and the same ROOT could have multiple meanings. Only when read in context could the correct word be deciphered. Where the context was uncertain or dubious, the Septuagint used a consensus to decide the meaning and in most cases added margin notes to explain the choice. These margin notes were not always heeded when the Septuagint was translated by the early Catholic Church, which was at the time embroiled in various heretical schisms related to the Bible.

The KJV used the Masorite version and as far as is known did not defer to the Septuagint or the Vulgate, which they rejected.

When considering the translations above it should be noted that reading the Old Testament required not just the literary context but also the geographical context. This has led to many of the mistranslations as those who transcribed the Septuagint were unaware of the physical environment that much of the Old Testament is set in.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Another fascinating discrepancy. I had always assumed that the Bible made no mention of Arabs. I got this impression from Velikovsky who maintained that the Arabs were the Amelikites aka the Hyksos -- and by the way, the founders of Jerusalem! Now clearly there can be an innocent explanation but again it comes down to who is identifying the Arabs.

Why is that everyone including the members of this forum takes it as read that the events and locale of the Old Testament took place in Palestine and the surrounding area when all evidence points to the contrary?

Even Velikovsky assumed this. I've read his books on Ramses, the Sea People and the Exodus and he had just as much trouble correlating geographical contest with Biblical texts as modern Archaeologists. His search for evidence of the Battle of Kadesh was particularly discouraging. He had to rely on total speculation for much of the narrative.

The evidence lies elsewhere and we with open minds should be exploring that possibility.

As for the Arabs consider the following from 1 King 17:6:
When Elijah was hiding in the desert the ravens brought him bread and meat every morning and evening.
This is the standard translation in Hebrew, Greek and English. Does this sound to anyone here a plausible scenario?

Consider that the unvocalised word for the critical 'ravens' is the Hebrew 'rbym which has been vocalised as orbim ' ravens, but it can also be vocalised arbim which means ARABS thus changing the sentence to;
When Elijah was hiding in the desert the ARABS brought him bread and meat every morning and evening.
Now which of the above makes perfect sense?

For some here who accept the standard translation since the original source cannot possibly be ambiguous about such a very clear distinction. They would be looking for some hidden esoteric meaning in the reference to ravens. This is the fallacy of taking Biblical text as accurate translations of the original Hebrew. ONLY the original Hebrew has the answers and neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic Text are accurate.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When considering whether the KJV has contemporary themes woven into it then follow Komorikid's Law:
"If it looks like Dog Shit, smells like Dog Shit and squishes on your shoe like Dog Shit ... it usually is Dog Shit."
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's actually called the Masoretic Text. It is a version of the Jewish Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) standardized in the early Middle Ages (as I understand it) and used by Jews of the time. The same text is the approved text in use today. The earliest extant manuscript dates from the 10th century. However, the Masoretic text is thought to descend from the originals kept in the temple in Jerusalem up to 70AD.

The Latin Catholic Bible, was a translation of the Greek Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Masoretic text.

Most but (interestingly) not all of the "Hebrew" Bible was written in Hebrew. Some of it was actually written in Aramaic (a fact I never knew to this day). (Wikipedia)
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael stated:
"However, the Masoretic text is thought to descend from the originals kept in the temple in Jerusalem up to 70AD."

response:
Yea, in the same way the Byzantine text-type (Textus Receptus) that the KJV uses is said ('thought' is way too generous use of a word) to be, somehow-someway, from the pen of the apostles.

For it is written; that the authorized KJV and the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA fornicated on the altar of Theobiblos while the descendants of Erasmus watched.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Latin Catholic Bible, was a translation of the Greek Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Masoretic text.

This is not an accurate statement. The Masoretic Text is a transliteration of the ORIGINAL Old Testament texts that was compiled in Babylon during the Archamenid (Persian) period. It incorporated all the Biblical history up to and including the Babylonian captivity. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Persian Empire at the time and the compiled texts were translated into Aramaic as well (known as the Targums). This original translation in Hebrew was later augmented with Aramaic additions, notably the Book of Ezra, Ruth and other works that form the latter part of the post exilic Biblical narrative as Hebrew had passed out of common use by that time being replaced by Aramaic.

This compilation formed the basis of the Septuagint, which was created in Egyptian Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st century BC. The editors were Greek Jews who spoke and wrote in Koine Greek (common or cosmopolitan Greek) the lingua franca of their time and the language of the New Testament. They could also read and write Aramaic, which had been the former lingua franca of the entire Middle East until the Persian Empire fell to the Greeks.

The Septuagint formed the basis for the later translations, the most notable being Origen and the Latin Vulgate Bible, which was riddled with inaccuracies and has been universally recognised by historians (religious and agnostic) as the least accurate translation.

The Masoretic Text is a translation of the Original Bible text. It is not a translation of the Septuagint and the Septuagint is most definitely not a translation of the Masoretic Text, which was written down between the 6th and 9th century AD (700 years after the Septuagint)

The Masorites VOCALISED (added vowels) the Original Bible text which had hitherto been only written in consonant form. The Septuagint had Greek vowels added, but Masorites did not consider these vowels as a true representation of equivalent vocalisations in Hebrew. The problem was that Masorites were over 1000 years removed from the Archaic Hebrew language and had no real knowledge beyond tradition of how Archaic Hebrew was vocalised. Their efforts can only be summarised as a best guestimate.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most but (interestingly) not all of the "Hebrew" Bible was written in Hebrew. Some of it was actually written in Aramaic.

Aramaic replaced Hebrew around the 4th century BC as the lingua franca of the Middle East. It was adopted as the language of the Persian Empire but it was spoken along with Hebrew as far back as Abraham.

The Old Testament is extremely ambiguous about the person known as Jacob/Israel. It has been assumed that the story is about one person who had two different names. But this cannot be true. In one part of the narrative Jacob is described as the son of Isaac who was the son of Abram the Aramean. In another he is Jacob/Israel the grandson of Abraham the Hebrew of Hebron. He plainly can't be Aramean and Hebrew at the same time, which leads me to believe there are two distinct persons being spoken about. This may explain the tribal conflicts of later Biblical history especially during and after the time of Solomon. This could also explain the ambiguous speech of Moses to 'All Israel' when he alternated, line by line, with first Jacob then Israel

come curse Jacob for me
come denounce Israel

who can count the crowd of Jacob
and number the clan of Israel

he has not seen evil in Jacob
nor wickedness in Israel

for there is no sorcery against Jacob
no divination against Israel

how far are your tents O Jacob
your encampments O Israel

From Numbers 23

There is a crowd of Jacob but a clan of Israel - tents of Jacob but encampments of Israel. This suggests to me we are dealing with two distinct groups, one much larger than the other.

Could it be that two distinct groups formed All Israel that gave rise to Solomon period? Saul was of the tribe of Israel while David was of the tribe of Jacob. Israel constituted 11 tribes of Hebrews and Jacob was a single tribe of Arameans. After Solomon died the two groups could not reconcile their difference and split into Judah (Arameans) and Israel (Hebrews).

The Babylonian captivity was exclusively from Judah's educated elite and priesthood. Why the Babylonians chose to second this group has never satisfactorily been explained as they were treated with respect in Babylon and even filled high positions. This group also constituted the compilers and redactors of ancient extant Hebrew documents, brought from Jerusalem, into the Old Testament and chronicled the post exilic history in Aramaic.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kom. Are these your ideas or are you posting concepts you have come to accept but were originally advocated by others? If the latter, telling us where the idea comes from would be helpful.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The chronology listed above is the standard history accepted according to the available knowledge and the one universally accepted by historians either religious or agnostic. Any history book or judicious Googling will confirm this.

Hebrew as a written language disappeared between the 4th and 5th century BC and was replaced during the Persian reign of the Middle East by Aramaic, which had existed along with Hebrew from at least 1000 BC. It is not known when Hebrew as a spoken language disappeared, if at all (parts of West Arabia and the Horn of Africa have definite Hebrew dialects) but by the time of St. Paul the entire Middle East was speaking and writing in Aramaic.

After the conquest of Alexander the Great, the written language of scholarship and government was Koine Greek (cosmopolitan Greek), which was the language of the New Testament and of the Septuagint. Greek was also the lingua franca of the early Roman Empire. The Septuagint was compiled from Hebrew and Aramaic sources that were extant in the 3rd century BC from Jerusalem; and from Babylon, where the earlier ancient Hebrew texts dating back to the Solomonid Period were compiled and redacted into the Hebrew Bible which was written with consonants only. The Septuagint was an attempt to not only translate it into Greek but to add the vocalisation (vowels) missing from the original text.

The Masoretic Text was written by Jews who spoke Arabic between the 6th and 9th century AD in Palestine and Babylon. They did not speak Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew. They were of the opinion that Arabic, which was a much closer spoken and written language to Old Hebrew, was a better guide to vocalisation than the Greek of the Septuagint. Using extant copies of the Old Hebrew/Aramaic texts and oral tradition, they re-vocalised the Hebrew Bible with vowel points inserted between the old consonantal texts to produce a new interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

There is a gross misconception about the nature of the Biblical translations that assumes that, because Jews did the translations, they spoke Hebrew and read Hebrew. This is totally incorrect.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The other gross misconception is that the Hebrew Bible can be read as a continuous narrative. It cannot. Hebrew like Arabic relies on interpreting the words in context. As the linguistics of all Semitic languages are based on a ROOT word, nominally a noun or verb usually of three consonants, this ROOT word can have numerous meanings.

For instance the word slm can mean 'reward', 'spark', 'completeness', 'peace', 'good health', or it can be a greeting in Hebrew. It is only when the context of the sentence, and sometimes the entire tenor of a passage is discerned, that its true meaning can be resolved. Semitic languages rely heavily on CONTEXT and the Hebrew Bible relies not just on linguistic context, it requires a collective interpretation of textural, historical, philosophical, geographic and genealogical context to understand the meaning of the words.

All these contextual layers are interwoven into a historical narrative that at times is difficult to make sense of. Sometimes characters appear out of sync or contradict previous or later descriptions of their person or deeds. This has hitherto been put down to the infamous term 'textural corruption' which explains away the laziness or unenlightenment of the scholar interpreting the text ... 'probably edited by another author at a later date'.

This is how many of the place names in Palestine have been designated. One has to remember that almost all the Palestinian place names that are mentioned in the Bible were so named by Biblical archaeologists despite the fact that most, if not all, do not correspond with their descriptions in the Bible. Many bear no relationship at all to their Biblical geography or are situated in the totally wrong direction from a given Biblical reference point. Jericho never existed as the city described in the Bible with any degree of accuracy at any chronological point in history when Biblical scholars say Joshua crossed the Jordan. Hebron is named because there is a cave nearby where ossuaries were found, which dated from the Roman period. Negev is in the opposite direction from the Gaza in the Bible and it was pasture land not desert.

Mick has said elsewhere that the hardest thing to move is an English village. I would posit that it's just as hard to move any village that had been around for a few millennia. The Romans marched up and down the continents, Britain, Asia Minor, North Africa and the Middle East, and local towns and villages in all these places still exist today. Only in Palestine have they all seemingly disappeared. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and many others have conquered and been conquered but we can still find all the great cities and towns that were mentioned in the ancient text except in Palestine. Why? The Bible is either total textural corruption or the evidence lies somewhere else.

This was something that I personally had been aware of from books I had read and my searches on the net but I didn't formulate any opinions until one of my relatives who was going to the University of Queensland and knew my interest in ancient history, gave me a book by Bernard Leeman. The book is called The Queen of Sheba and Israel. Leeman is an historian and has spent the last 15 years researching through historical records and various contemporary archaeological finds the history of the Sabaen Empire (Sheba) and its relationship with the Biblical Judah.

I found in this book a reference to the works of both Kamal Salibi and Dr. Albert E Glock. Glock was an American archaeologist and educator who was killed by an unidentified gunman in Birzeit on the West Bank, on 19 January 1992. The murder bore all the hallmarks of a Mossad hit squad. He was working on an archaeological excavation near Nablus, and he had made a discovery that would undermine the whole Israeli historic claim to Jerusalem.

After I read Salibi's book The Bible Came From Arabia the pieces all started to fit. Salibi is a well-respected Christian Lebanese linguist and an expert in Semitic languages. His evidence is compelling and correlates the historic, philosophical, geographical, botanical and various religious evidence into a coherent theory. The places, people, chronology and geography all dovetail into the Biblical narrative. Even religious philosophy can be easily coordinated into the Biblical narrative but in Western Arabia not Palestine.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The chronology listed above is the standard history accepted according to the available knowledge and the one universally accepted by historians either religious or agnostic. Any history book or judicious Googling will confirm this.

I am not in a position to evaluate much of what you write because you never differentiate your own ideas from those of scholarship and never cite any supporting evidence. You make claims of fact as though it were all given when we truly know very little about much of what you are writing about. This is not edifying.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
After I read Salibi's book The Bible Came from Arabia the pieces all started to fit.

Jeeze, Kom, why didn't the international Jewish conspiracy kill him too?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Honestly. This "Bible Came from Arabia" stuff deserves its own thread -- but then only if you or others honestly have something new to contribute to it.

There's a thousand theories I am sympathetic toward but if I've nothing to add to them -- if I've no new evidence to present in support of them they are not worth discussing here. This is the kind of thing that goes on everywhere else on the Web: endless naval-gazing about someone else's ideas. Not interested.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael, why does your judgement desert you whenever Israel, the USA or capitalism get featured here? Carry on, Komoro. Thoroughly edifying. To not coin a phrase.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group