Just bought the King James Bible.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

... go ahead and do or say whatever you want, but don't call yourself ...

I agree that's how there should be, but these days there is a tendency to redefine everything to satisfy various agendas.

Surely, always the establishment of the day defined things to fit their views, and that establishment was inherently vulnerable to human error. But those who want to change definitions are as vulnerable too.

It would be amusing if it didn't create so much useless agitation, and worse.

[BigJohn]

I use to give talks, several times a month, at one Church. Generally, that congregation would say the Nicene Creed during almost every service. I don't think most of the people who recited the Creed knew exactly what it meant especially the part "begotten of the Father". 'Begotten' is a word most of us have no idea what it means. It reminds me of the Lord's Prayer when they mention 'Art'. I sometimes ask "Who is Art' and watch the person(s) try reciting the Lord's Prayer so as to find 'Art'.

That Church I went to: main stream Christianity, in many cases, has a tendency to refer to it as being Demonic and or use other degrading labels.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

... I don't think most of the people who recited the Creed knew exactly what it meant especially the part "begotten of the Father". ...

I tend to believe that there is an undeclared reason to confuse the audience / readership, and so induce a state of heightened suggestibility.

Why would they do that? A good reason would be to have the subjects intuitively absorb the symbolism of the message that is delivered.

An alternate reason, as possible, would be to manipulate those subjects, with good, or less good intentions.

Originally Posted by inavalan

I tend to believe that there is an undeclared reason to confuse the audience / readership, and so induce a state of heightened suggestibility.
Why would they do that? A good reason would be to have the subjects intuitively absorb the symbolism of the message that is delivered.
An alternate reason, as possible, would be to manipulate those subjects, with good, or less good intentions.

inavalan,

Good observations…..good if ‘confuse’ and ‘suggestibiliy’ can be considered as leading to the consideration of possibilities…..especially if one believes in multiple levels of truth(which I do)

As far as intuitive absorption, parables come to mind….I can believe that was their intention.

I see no good outcomes for any form of manipulation….that seems to appear as usurping the freedom of others and it screams ego….a self serving ploy……

[BigJohn]

Interesting comments, Invalan.

When I look at the World scene, I would say the people are being manipulated. The classic is 'the end of the World' scenario.

I suspect every once in a while, people are able to see the symbolism and the good that comes out of that.

[BigJohn]

Amazing Revelations.

I thought the oldest manuscript of the New Testament was the Ryland Papyrus P52. Even that manuscript is not an original.

I am also surprised that some of the 'founding Fathers' could read and write so many diversified languages such as Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic, and Georgian. I didn't know that Armenian, Gothic and Georgian were even spoken in the first century.

I thought the The P e s h i t t a was from Aramaic Christianity and did not originate in the first century. Interestingly, Arianism came out of this form of Christianity.

[BigJohn]

When God's name was removed, even though it still remains in the Hebrew text, has lead some to believe if Jesus and the early Christians actually knew the name. Even when the 'error' became apparent, virtually all translators have decided to continue with the 'error' instead of making the correction.

[BigJohn]

God's name was not removed from the Hebrew scriptures. The name was just not translated properly into the Greek scriptures and then erroneously translated into other languages. Most translators, not all translators, seem to be in harmony in not translating that name properly from the Hebrew which does not mean it was not written in the text used for their Biblical translations.

What is strange is that in the New Testament, Old Testament scriptures are cited but are generally cited 'incorrectly'.

Can you imagine if the name Jesus was removed and for the most part, nobody knew about the name?

Would people support the removal of Siddhartha Gautama name from all writings because some don't want to translate it?

But then, the name of God seems to have gone the same route as the Hindu Trimurti which I consider a serious shame.