Original language of the Bible

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Is the usualy apologetic stance that of one of the narrow gates to the temple being called the "Needle", which in itself would be far too small for a fully laden pack animal to pass through?

I honestly can't remember. It was something like that. Might've been what juantoo3 said.

I don't want to turn this around on the Qu'ran like a hostile Christian or something. Especially since its has been maintained extremely well, but there are the obvious exceptions presented by the differing quotes in certain ancient architecture and currency. And then the dubious 'discovery' of books in the Torah, comparable to Joseph Smith being led to translate the Mormon Bible from golden plates.

On another topic, I've always been struck by how many Christians venerate King James and the version of the bible named after him, even after obvious errors in translation have been exposed. This bizarre preference could extend to the Vulgate.

I went to a Christian school briefly and they referred to all other translations as 'effiminate' bibles. LOL I'm not sure but I assumed it was because of the differing interpretations on the passages dealing with homosexuality.

[I, Brian]

I think the love of the KJV is mainly because it was the staple Protestant textual diet during the Reformation - having access to the Bible in their hands was a milestone traditionalists naturally seem willing to hold on to. Of course, I've also seen some apparent Christians claim that Jesus and the Apostles read from the KJV...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I wish I still had my copy of "The Men behind the King James Version of the Bible" by Gustavus Payne. The last time I went looking for a replacement copy, I learned it was out of print. Mr. Payne has written other books on the subject.

In the book I read, Payne detailed the work of the committee of 75 scholars that translated the oldest known complete set of extent texts, in my understanding still held in the British Museum, and dating from around 400 AD. Payne also highlighted some of the deliberate mistranslations due to politics of the church and state in England at the time, although it seems these were few and not as significant as many would like to go on about. For instance, the word "bishoprick", I seem to recall being in Acts 1:20, is not to be found in the manuscripts according to Payne; but the word translated as such, episkope, has an equivalent meaning from the Greek: (Strong's 1984) office of a "bishop", bishoprick, visitation.

There had been other English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV, two that jump to memory are the Breeches Bible and the Bishop's Bible. The KJV was instigated by a Quaker, but only about 3-5 Quakers participated in the committee that translated the manuscripts, the balance were Anglicans. Some suggest that some were covert Jesuits. During the ten years it took to translate the KJV, the Catholics hurriedly produced the Douay translation. The original 1611 publication of the King James contained the Apocrypha, as well as letters from the translators to the King and to the people. A reprint is available. Most of the information in this paragraph is from Payne, the balance is from the 1611 KJV.

So, depending on the dating for the Reformation, (Martin Luthur nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Church at Wurttemburg in 1517), the Reformation was already almost 95 years in the making by the time the KJV was first published. As I recall, the Bishop's Bible was the English translation of choice for the early part of the Reformation.

I think the KJV was instrumental in the colonial expansion into America. The first permanent British colony was established in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. In 1620, a group of disgruntled Quakers settled Plymouth colony in Massachussets (sp?). Less than 10 years after their prize project was confiscated and turned into a political tool for their rivals, the Quakers were increasingly being pressured to leave the country (or else!).

Hope this helps.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

So there are certain claims made regarding the incorruptability of the Qur'an itself - certainly in comparison to older writings.

But what are the implications of such claims or what do muslims conclude from such claims?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Brian!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

There are a lot of concerns about revisionism within the New Testament, the first texts themselves not even surfacing for at least 20 years after the apparent death of Jesus - and only then appearing in dribs and drabs over the next 50 or so years, and apparently focussed on the needs of different local congregations - but then applied to a universal house of faith. A lot of apocrypha, pseudonymous writing, and pseudepigrapha also begins to arise.

I am not very familiar with the scholarship on this subject, but my gut inclination would be that the early Christians, especially post Temple destruction, would have to operate covertly, "underground" and in secret. This would explain to my satisfaction the release in "dribs and drabs." The Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV is from the inter-Testament period, that is, pre-New Testament. Most of the other extra-Biblical texts I have looked at seem to me from sources attempting to legitimize and consolidate political power and primacy among the various factions, with greater and lesser success (after the Council of Nicea and "official" canonization, 324 AD). I haven't taken the time yet to read Josephus, but I wonder if he sheds any light on the day-to-day operations of the early Christians. The period that encompasses the Roman persecutions would necessitate covert operations, during which fractional writings and factional positions would seem obvious to me. It is my understanding that during the time covering the persecutions up to and including the Council of Nicea, many texts were lost or destroyed. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas seem to support this, in my view, being an incomplete and seemingly random collection of wisdom sayings of Christ.

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Asalam-u-Alaikum. May peace and guidance be upon you all.

A question was asked that what is the original language of the Bible. The Jews, Christians and the Muslims believe that the Old Testimony was revealed to the Prophet Moses(P.B.U.H). The Christians and the Muslims believe that the New Testimony was revealed on Jesus(P.B.U.H). Now, we all know that english is not the native language of the Bible. The Bible holds the record of being the most translated book on the face of the earth, then in which language was it actually revealed? Can the original copy of the Bible be obtained? Please clarify.

Yes, it can be obtained. I'm currently preparing to transcribe the Book of John from the original Greek Text(s). Have to be careful with Hebrew though. Lots of hidden astro-philosophical symbolism in the characters.

I'll keep in touch about my transcription. (So far, it doesn't vary much from the original King James appointed version other than stereotypically gender-centric words appearing to be not so gender-centric at all, in fact.)

Biblical Greek is much different than modern English. More conceptual.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Brian!
I am not very familiar with the scholarship on this subject, but my gut inclination would be that the early Christians, especially post Temple destruction, would have to operate covertly, "underground" and in secret. This would explain to my satisfaction the release in "dribs and drabs." The Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV is from the inter-Testament period, that is, pre-New Testament. Most of the other extra-Biblical texts I have looked at seem to me from sources attempting to legitimize and consolidate political power and primacy among the various factions, with greater and lesser success (after the Council of Nicea and "official" canonization, 324 AD). I haven't taken the time yet to read Josephus, but I wonder if he sheds any light on the day-to-day operations of the early Christians. The period that encompasses the Roman persecutions would necessitate covert operations, during which fractional writings and factional positions would seem obvious to me. It is my understanding that during the time covering the persecutions up to and including the Council of Nicea, many texts were lost or destroyed. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas seem to support this, in my view, being an incomplete and seemingly random collection of wisdom sayings of Christ.

Sorry, juantoo - I wasn't very clear.

There's a strong tradition in Christianity of the literary sources having existed in oral form for some time prior to being written down, and there's no reason to really doubt that claim at all.

The point of difference between the Christian canon and Islamic canon is that in Islam it was established relatively swiftly in comparison - at around 20 years after the death of Mohammed. And that's everything decided there and then (apparently). Whereas in Christianity there was the general um-ing and ah-ing for about 4 centuries, though certain texts seem to have a clear widespread use (the Gospels, for example). It was canonising certain epistles over others that apprently caused a lot of contention.

The Apocrypha I meant are the New Testament Apocrypha - just in case you hadn't seen it:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/

These are texts that, for the most part, originate from early Christians. In fact, the Shepherd of Hermas, I believe was a rather shock omission from the NT canon - as was I Clement - and if I remember right both of these texts are actually present in the Codex Sinaiticus. The Gospel of Barnabas, on the other hand, is a general apologetic Islamic work from the early mediaeval period of Spain, so far as I can remember.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Quesocoatl

Yes, it can be obtained. I'm currently preparing to transcribe the Book of John from the original Greek Text(s).

Plural 'texts' being the most telling word in that paragraph.

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Plural 'texts' being the most telling word in that paragraph.

Yes. There are several "acceptable" orthodox documents
on which to base one's study.

Helpful hint to anyone interested in this sort of research:
Download some Hebrew and Greek Fonts....do a couple of searches
and....well.....you'll be rollin' in the car, Baby.




I would add that Sanskrit.....is very similar to Hebrew
...and, generally, considered to be much older and, therefore,
well worth at least a peek...

or two.



or three.

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Sorry, juantoo - I wasn't very clear.

There's a strong tradition in Christianity of the literary sources having existed in oral form for some time prior to being written down, and there's no reason to really doubt that claim at all.

True.

I have a 29th chapter of Acts roaming around somewhere in this mess and..
I've also seen account of a certain Roman governor that threw himself off a cliff in the Alps sometime following the death of Jesus. I couldn't recite my whole collection in a single reply.

The same is true of Hebrew icons, in regard to history being, more or less, a fireside chat in some cultures. The (allegorical) Tree of Eden can be found in nearly all religious concepts. To see it, all one has to do is find the pole star. There's a big snake coiled around it to protect it.

(Remember, only "nobles" were "allowed" to read at one point.)

In my opinion, the divine inspirants of the Bible had this very idea in mind when "borrowing" from other cultures' pantheons.

We are all "Hebrew" ... if you really want to get down to the sh**.


And I do. Two fisted and foaming at the mouth.
Sick of this crap.


Incidentally, as far as the pole star is concerned........there are rumors going around that if one does the math to place Sirius as the "Central Sun" of our "Solar Cluster"....then, the math behind Polar Precession Theory doesn't even fit into the equation.

Go figure.

[Mus Zibii]

Sanskrit brings up another point. If Moses wrote WROTE the Torah what language did he write it in?

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Sanskrit brings up another point. If Moses wrote WROTE the Torah what language did he write it in?

Thank you.

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by Avinash

But what are the implications of such claims or what do muslims conclude from such claims?

Good point.

And what of the Satanic Verses?

http://www.cs.albany.edu/~amit/essays/rushdie.html

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Quesocoatl

Good point.

And what of the Satanic Verses?

http://www.cs.albany.edu/~amit/essays/rushdie.html

I always hated the secular liberal American apologists for the Fatwa crazy nuts that wanted to kill Rushdie, but I have to admit he was far more antagonistic than he needed to be. Or maybe that was his point.

Still, a damn good book. I got it and The Last Temptation of Christ sitting right next to each other.

More on the history of the SV (not the novel).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses

[bananabrain]

The (allegorical) Tree of Eden can be found in nearly all religious concepts. To see it, all one has to do is find the pole star. There's a big snake coiled around it to protect it.

as i've said before, not all trees the same tree, nor are all snakes the same snake. every culture has trees in its symbolic language because - gasp - there are trees everywhere. what this does not mean is that we should all go round accusing judaism of being plagiarised. sheesh. *rolls eyes*

(Remember, only "nobles" were "allowed" to read at one point.)

not in jewish culture.

We are all "Hebrew" ... if you really want to get down to the sh**.
And I do. Two fisted and foaming at the mouth.
Sick of this crap.

which means what exactly? i must say that you seem to have some kind of agenda; you seem more concerned with passing judgement than actually learning anything.

If Moses wrote WROTE the Torah what language did he write it in?

traditional opinion is divided as to whether it was written in the palaeo-hebrew or ashurit script. however, i don't see why we should automatically assume the language wasn't hebrew, unless we are (as usual) subjecting judaism to more stringent and tendentious criticism than any other religious system.

b'shalom

bananabrain