Has the bible been altered? Not translated, interpreted, but altered?

[mee]

Originally Posted by Azure24

Ok let me explain...

The King James does say in Rev. 11:15 that Christ will reign "for ever and ever." However, when you add the 3rd "and for ever," it becomes unscriptural. Furthermore, as the Authorized Version of Rev. 11:15 is an unfortunate and misleading translation, the phrase "for ever and ever" is also unscriptural. Remember, Greek is a very exact language, but King James is a very inexact translation. Here's what God's "exact" Word says regarding this matter.

It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning.

First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. This is a big difference. Rev. 11:15, "aion" is in the plural, "aions." Now if you insist that "aion" means "for ever" or "eternal," how is it possible to have a plurality of "eternities?"

This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal."

"Eon" is the closest English equivalent to the Greek word "aion." Age is close, but has no adjective form, as eon does (eonian).

The Greek Scriptures tell us that Christ will reign "for the eons of the eons" or "the ages of the ages." Not "for the eons of the eons of the eons" as some might of thought I was suggesting. "For the eons of the eons" makes simple and exact sense, and is in harmony with other Scriptures. "For ever and ever" contradicts dozens of other Scriptures, as I can show you if you want. The truth is, "for ever and ever" is a contradiction by itself. Both language and logic forbid duplication of anything infinite. There is no such thing as "several eternities" or "multiple for evers" or "numerous everlastings."

In Rev. 11:15 both "eons" are in the PLURAL. So if someone insists that an "aion" means "for ever" or "eternity," then "aions" would be "for evers" or "eternities." Hence it would have to be translated "for evers of evers" or "for eternities of eternities." What sense is there in such contradictory phrases?

And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever."
revelation 11;15

Your kingship is a kingship for all times indefinite,
And your dominion is throughout all successive generations.PSALM 145;13

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; DANIEL 2;44


In line with the rest of the verses



and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom." luke 1;33

[Thomas]

Hi Azure —

Originally Posted by Azure24

Ok let me explain...
It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning.

Where one person sees them lose all logic ... another sees them transcend it.

Whilst the Scripture scholar seeks always for the best precision he or she can aspire to ... they know that all their words are in a sense themselves inadequte.

Inquiry into lexicon is subsequent to the enquiry into language, which is a far wider discipline. Lose sight of that, and you have lost sight of the real text.

The biggest complaint about theologians and philosophers of the worlds Sacred Texts is this forensic study of the meaning of words, letters ...

A grain of sand in a desert presents the man dying of thirst with a far different image than a grain of sand presents to a holiday maker on the beach.

A grain of sand trickling through an hourglass presents the man with an immanent sense of his own mortality with a far, far different image than that same grain of sand in that same hourglass presents to a man intent of his soft-boiled egg...

Lose sight of the Transcendant and one is like a blind man leading the blind.

But someone said it far better than I...

Auguries of Innocence
William Blake

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

...

We are led to Believe a Lie
When we see not Thro' the Eye
Which was Born in a Night to perish in a Night
When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light.
God Appears and God is Light
To those poor Souls who dwell in Night,
But does a Human Form Display
To those who Dwell in Realms of day."

Take the poet from the man ... you're left with a pendant.

If you ask me what the world needs, I'd opt for the poet, every time.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Oh dear ...

Of course, I meant to say:
"The biggest complaint of (not 'about') theologians and philosophers of the worlds Sacred Texts is this forensic study of the meaning of words, letters ..."

And, which made me smile:
"Take the poet from the man ... you're left with a pendant."
For pendant read pedant throughout.
(Has anyone read "1066 And All That"?)

Thomas