- This topic is empty.
- Posts
if the above is true, then they deliberately let the people use their titles to bring them under christianity. that's bogus to do that. whether it was “deus” “theos” “adonai”
in other words, in history for the process of assimilation, the europeans converted and conquered other people by allowing them to use whatever word they wanted for our heavenly Father.
if you think this is ok…
if there's a historical reason for this… if you think the crusades weren't all good. if you think the europeans conquering and making into slaves other people weren't all good…. take a look at the historical perspective as to why the titles such as “God” were used.
Quote (BrandonIke @ Sep. 19 2005,10:00) i feel like killing them.
Who?…I sincerely hope you werent referring to me.t8, why are you allowing comments like this and “scuss bucket, idiot, liar…..” to continue? Are you moderating this forum or not?
Brandon,
Isn't that what the pagans did? Please be careful when using emotionally-charged and violent language like that on message boards. Actually, don't use it at all.My comments were in regard to generic message board etiquette, I was not challenging any aspect of your faith Brandon.
Be well
Ah, very nice research BrandonIke, and you have shown ANOTHER website that knows the truth too.
Yes, I have researched the encyclopedia americana 1945, but I thought IF people want believe 2 or 3 sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, and all the other Dictionaries I gave, then, they would not believe a THOUSAND of them.
I felt the same way in disgust as You when I discovered this years ago, and I was appaled because of the dammage and dis-respect to the true Heavenly Father Yahweh.
And, I have the entire set of “” Funk and Wagnalls “” too.
I can't blame you for being disgusted, I was also, and I still am so.
However, people on here now know the truth concerning this matter, and I thank you BrandonIke for revealing those articles of research, which you have also proven to people on here too.
Thank You BrandonIke for loving the truth enough to search it out and reveal it to others.
Very nice work indeed.
Eliyah C.
Ps. The English word “G-d ” can be traced also to the “” Sanskrit language “” in which it refers to “” invoke Libation “” and ” to pour molten images “” of the pagan “” Jupiter “” which is mentioned in the Book of ( Acts ).
Yes, this is a MUST READ indeed.
Originally Posted by BrandonIke,
“”
Quote This is exactly what happened. With the solarisation of all the deities, the Sun-deity was seen as the one behind them all only having different names.” http://www.iahushua.com/ST-RP/glory.htm actually, i've heard that the title “God” was pagan before, and i was interested, but i was swayed into going with the title.
thanks for bring up the topic with lots of writing. i'm pinpointing references.
i think we can take for granted our world. airplanes, ships, cars, computers. when in reality, the history has had lots of bloodshed in wars and slavery. for the conquerors during the conversion process to let natives use whatever word they wanted for our heavenly Father… i think this is wrong to defend in the present time.
BrandonIke,
As I said before, there are very few of us that Yah has pointed out the significance concerning applying other nation's pagan idol deities to Him and His Great Name, and who have really investigated this fully and realize the true Creator Yah's own commands against them, and I thank Yah that He has allowed you to see His His insight on this matter according to His Commands( Exod.20:7; Exod.23:13; Joshua 23:7).
That is WHY He( Yah) says, “”” Besides Me( Yah) there is NO El “”.
Can you imagine, the very Author of the scriptures who wrote it( Yah), and His So Great Name was actually changed and given credit to His enemies?
That is like an “” Author “” of a modern day book, and when his book is translated into another language, then the translators leave out or change the real “” author's “” correct name for “” another name “” that no one even knows.
For example : If you( BrandonIke) write a best selling book in English, then it is translated into the “” Arab language””, but when the translators translated your best selling book into the “” Arag language “”, they change your real name to that of your arch enemy like “” Bin Laden “” and he gets the credit for your best selling book instead of you, and noboby even knows your real true name, and that you are the real author of that book.
That is exactly what has happened concerning the true name of the real ” author ” of the scriptures, and His Great Name.
The translators have violated several commandments( Exod.20) in doing that too.
Yah bless.
Eliyah C.
1. britannica 1911
2. americana 1945eliyah, can you give any other encyclopedias that show that the word, god, has a pagan origin?
Yes, there is an older one called…
( The World's Popular Encyclopedia, Volume 6).
Just start looking in ALL the “” Encyclopedias “” you can find on the web, and also in “” All the Dictionaries “”.
There is literally mounds of proof concerning that words origins, and that is why i studied into the Etyemology of words, and traced that word “” gawd “”( Strongs 1409, 1464=guwd) to all the modern “” English =god “, German=Asyrian=Gott Guth, Danish and Swedish=Gud “”.
All these modern title name deities trace back to the ancient “” Asyrians and Babylonians “” deities that the scriptures plainly identify.
Thanks,
Eliyah C.
the spanish conquistadores also brought the spanish language with them though… but there's still a question as to how the various titles were put into the many languages.
honestly, i came to this website because of the trinity article. i think that's wrong for the people through the many years in history to have that doctrine.
i'm looking for the truth. i think the deletion of YHWH from the old testament and the addition of “God” and “LORD” are wrong.
I too BrandonIke KNOW that the ” trinity ” doctrine is in error, and have proven its ancient pagan origins too.
Isn't it strange that billions of people will follow a doctrine such as that, and never really investigate its ancient origins?
These are five things I’ve come across with regards to the KJV. Don’t get me wrong. It’s one of my favorites. It’s old and popular and has a certain feel to it. But there are certain things I have to mention only because it's been repeatedly stated that the KJV is infallible:
1. Many thousands of ancient written secular documents have been found in recent years. And these documents give a better understanding of the original languages— Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek—in which the Bible was written. Not so long ago it was thought that many words in the Greek Scriptures were special Bible words, so to speak. But now these same words have been found in ordinary correspondence of Bible times—in deeds, official documents, and even in receipts. Seeing how these words were used in secular documents of the time has been helpful understanding their meaning.
For example: Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. Thus “Raca” was simply thought to mean “a vain fellow,” but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. (Matt. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.”2. More and more ancient Bible manuscripts have been discovered. The significance of these finds is not that they are radically different from manuscripts already possessed, indicating need for basic changes in the Bible text. To the contrary, their differences are minor. Yet, if you are a Shakespeare enthusiast, even one word altered in Hamlet would be important to you, although it would really make no difference to the characters, the plot, or the result. Similarly, to a Bible student the change of one word can be important for the meaning of a Bible verse, yet not alter any doctrine or basic interpretation.
At the time of the translation of the King James Version only a few Greek manuscripts were available and these were of rather late origin. But since then many fine vellum manuscripts of the collected Scriptures have come to light, some going back as far as the fourth century of our Common Era. Also papyrus manuscripts and fragments have been uncovered that date back to the third and even the second centuries C.E. Usually, the older the copy, the less likely it is to have suffered changes from copying.3. The English language itself has changed over time. If it continues to change at the same rate, a person who speaks English may have great difficulty understanding anything in the KJV. Will it be infallibe when no one understands it?
For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)
To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25.
The English word “coast” in former times did not refer just to a seacoast. It used to mean the side or border of a country. Thus the King James and Catholic Douay, both first published over 360 years ago, speak of the apostle Paul as traveling through the “upper coasts” to Ephesus. (Acts 19:1) However, the Bible record shows that Paul traveled to Ephesus from the “country of Galatia and Phrygia,” a journey that would take him nowhere near a seacoast! (Acts 18:23)
Another example is that of the verb apékho, translated “have” in older translations, but which means “to have in full,” being used “as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt,” as stated in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they “are having their reward in full.” That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.—Matt. 6:2.
There are many many such examples. The Bible is meant to be understood, not to be sung in latin because it sounds pretty. It’s meant to be understood.
4. The removal of God’s name and substitution of titles (GOD and LORD) in most places all except 3 or 4 doesn’t make sense. If it’s ok to use God’s name, why remove it? If it’s not ok, why have it in those few places?
5. And then there are the spurious verses. They have their own threads.
****
Sorry, forgot to mention this which has also bothered me and confused others from time to time:
The King James Version rendered she’ohl´ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai´des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge´en·na is also translated “hell.”So, sometimes sheohl is “hell” and sometimes “the grave,” and sometimes the “pit.”
I believe that sheol (hell) is the grave or pit. They are the same. But when you use the word “grave,” it is a different image then when you use the word “hell.”Similar with haides: sometimes “hell,” sometimes “grave.” Perhaps hell and grave are the same.
gehenna is different. We KNOW THIS because haides is thrown into gehenna. And gehenna is sometimes translated “hell.” So, is hell being thrown into hell?
This picking and choosing how to translate the same word differently has lead to confusion.
I believe transliterating them as sheol, haides and gehenna would be less confusing.“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”
—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
