Truth about Religious Texts

J

juice

Curious Seeker
Messages
24
Reaction score
5
Points
3
Hello Everyone,


I have some questions that might seems confusing and might be repetitive
and upset some believers even me, but I want the truth.
Now, some books was never placed in the bible for reasons we don't
know. I try to research the book o Enoch and read some interesting comments
about it.
Is it truly a book of lies as half say, or there some truth to it as the
other half claims?
Is there a bible that existed before all the translations,quran,etc...?
And if not, why do people heavily use and believe in the KJV over others?


I know and believe that God existed and wondered what was the true name
of Jesus since many would claim that the letter J never existed before
Constantine ordain Christianity as a religion?

If you can answer this feel free to shed light on this because I am fed-up
with all these lies and confusion now a days pertaining to religion.
 
Yeshua is what I hear as the common name for Jesus at the time. The bible was canonized without the book of enoch, yet it does have followers...

As far as I know our collection of 66 books was selected out of many at the time, and those books were determined to be most relevant, most accurate...you can read much of what didn't make the cut in the apocrypha on this site.

KJV became the standard bearer for protestants quite a while ago... and now there is the NewKJV and the RevisedKJV and many more modernized (language updated to today) versions. KJV and Thou shalt nots are just familiar...
 
Hello Juice: You need to be aware that I am a non-traditionalist. You should keep that in mind as you weigh the value of my remarks. I will promise you some very wise people will, to put it mildly, not agree! I will say this. There are no short cuts to your pursuit. You should find your own answers otherwise your will be living someone else's truths.

There are between eighteen to twenty-four books either inferred or mentioned in the Bible, but not included. There are scores and scores of other Christian writing that didn't "make the final cut". However, I am not sure that it matters. It would not have changed the central message nor would it have corrected obvious problems.

The Bible is the best understanding of important universal truths told using personification, simile and metaphor. It is told with the best understanding of the times. The Bible has been changed to placate Emperors, Kings and Church Fathers and it has been translated multiple times and errors occurred. The Holy Bible does not have exclusive rights to those issues.

I may not have directly answered some of your questions but I hope this helps you find your own direction. I suggest you do not limit your search to Christianity. You will miss so much.

Major Religions of the World ranked by number of Adherents:
Major Religions Ranked by Size
 
Hello and welcome. What if I were to tell you there are no truths. How about if I were to say there are many truths, and many are not compatible with each other. What would you think if I were to tell you that they are all truths. All of them.

Because when one gets right down to the very bottom line, each statement above is correct. How can that be? It can be because no mortal knows what are the lies and what is not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something! Not necessarily for money, of course. They are selling you their reality, their version of it anyway.

It is a hard, hard truth. You can not find the answers to your confusion from without. It has to come from within. Oh there is plenty of guides to help you along the way. We call them Holy texts, whether they be the Torah, Bible, the Koran, of Western traditions. Or the Ramayana, Dao de Jing, or Tripitaka to name a few of the East.

They can help you along your path, but the journey itself - only you can take it. Forget about truth or lies. Forget about confusion or illusion. As long as you are wrapped up in all that you will find it next to impossible to find what it is you desire.

One question I ask of you. And it is an important one. After having read what I have wrote - What am I trying to sell you?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Hello and welcome. What if I were to tell you there are no truths. How about if I were to say there are many truths, and many are not compatible with each other. What would you think if I were to tell you that they are all truths. All of them.

Because when one gets right down to the very bottom line, each statement above is correct. How can that be? It can be because no mortal knows what are the lies and what is not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something! Not necessarily for money, of course. They are selling you their reality, their version of it anyway.

It is a hard, hard truth. You can not find the answers to your confusion from without. It has to come from within. Oh there is plenty of guides to help you along the way. We call them Holy texts, whether they be the Torah, Bible, the Koran, of Western traditions. Or the Ramayana, Dao de Jing, or Tripitaka to name a few of the East.

They can help you along your path, but the journey itself - only you can take it. Forget about truth or lies. Forget about confusion or illusion. As long as you are wrapped up in all that you will find it next to impossible to find what it is you desire.

One question I ask of you. And it is an important one. After having read what I have wrote - What am I trying to sell you?
Click to expand...
Oooh ooh I know this one... you are trying to sell your idea that there is no single truth (a logical falsity). Or at least that noone knows 100% truth (of which I can agree with).

I'm going to assume the OP wanted a Christian perspective so I will bow out of my opinion on it... But Just wanted to say I understand what DA is saying and somewhat agree with the find the right path, but firmly disagree that there is no full truth. There is one, you might could claim that you don't think any religion or person's beliefs know it, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a truth.
 
Juice wrote:

I try to research the book o Enoch and read some interesting comments
about it.
Is it truly a book of lies as half say, or there some truth to it as the
other half claims?
Is there a bible that existed before all the translations,quran,etc...?
And if not, why do people heavily use and believe in the KJV over others?

I believe the "Book of Enoch" is in the Ethiopian canon of scripture.... I don't consider it a book of lies... It's not in most canons of the Bible used by Christians.

The original languages of the Bible were as I recall Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek... It is an interesting study to learn these languages... Some online resources are available to help students access the "original" scripts.

The Qur'an in Arabic is relatively later than the Bible of course...but Arabic is in some ways closer to Hebrew and Aramaic than say Greek. .. Arabic is clearly the language of revelation for Islam.

Being a Baha'i myself I'm interested in Arabic and Farsi but the translations we have into English have been authenticated of the Baha'i Writings.

I don't think the King James version of the Bible is as popular as it was in the late 19th early 20th century... but some like the language although it has become antiquated for most people...
 
If there are no "truths" Juice, you may be wasting your time. Some would suggest that there is no reality, therefore, no answers either. That is a fun metaphysical discussion. Don't get confused or caught in the minutiae or the verbiage.

I am not selling. I am sharing my point-of-view and hopefully learning many other points-of-view.

Here is a truth that I try to remember. Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I say, it's all in the search.

Enjoy yours!


 
Hello arthra. I'm only gonna be your straight-man one time. Knock it out of the park;)
 
juice said:
Hello Everyone,


I have some questions that might seems confusing and might be repetitive
and upset some believers even me, but I want the truth.
Now, some books was never placed in the bible for reasons we don't
know. I try to research the book o Enoch and read some interesting comments
about it.
Is it truly a book of lies as half say, or there some truth to it as the
other half claims?
Is there a bible that existed before all the translations,quran,etc...?
And if not, why do people heavily use and believe in the KJV over others?


I know and believe that God existed and wondered what was the true name
of Jesus since many would claim that the letter J never existed before
Constantine ordain Christianity as a religion?

If you can answer this feel free to shed light on this because I am fed-up
with all these lies and confusion now a days pertaining to religion.
Click to expand...
Tablets of stone and red letter bible is as original as it gets (In JudeoChristian tradition). The rest is all dubious.

And yes, you will find different percentages of truth everywhere. But nobody can tell you where you will find YOUR truth. May be meditate, read stuff, find whats common in them, and what resonates with you.

All the best :)
 
farhan said:
Tablets of stone and red letter bible is as original as it gets (In JudeoChristian tradition). The rest is all dubious.

And yes, you will find different percentages of truth everywhere. But nobody can tell you where you will find YOUR truth. May be meditate, read stuff, find whats common in them, and what resonates with you.

All the best :)
Click to expand...

the oldest texts that exist are the bahagadgita.
 
donnann said:
the oldest texts that exist are the bahagadgita.
Click to expand...

The Vedas are Hinduism's oldest texts and pre-date recorded history. They were originally oral only, and were later recorded. The Bhagavad Gita, a discourse within the Mahabharata, came later.
 
Thank You all for your help and clarity on the subject.

Devil's Advocate I will give a answer later on today.:D
 
Hi Juice –
juice said:
Now, some books was never placed in the bible for reasons we don't know.
Click to expand...
I think we do. They were not included in the Canon of the Hebrew (OT) or Christian (NT) Scriptures because they weren't considered authentic or 'revealed by God' by the traditions that gathered the texts together.

juice said:
I try to research the book o Enoch and read some interesting comments about it. Is it truly a book of lies as half say, or there some truth to it as the other half claims?
Click to expand...
The Jews rejected the Book of Enoch because they saw bits of it were copied from other Jewish texts. It's supposed to be written by the great grandfather of Noah, but then why is the book not mentioned when the Hebrew texts were compiled? Historians today place the book as being written 300-100BC.

juice said:
Is there a bible that existed before all the translations,quran,etc...?
And if not, why do people heavily use and believe in the KJV over others?
Click to expand...
Which bits of the Bible d'you mean?

The Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were written in Hebrew. A translation was made into Greek in Jerusalem some hundreds of years before Christ, and that includes some books written in Greek, which Judaism rejects, but which Christianity accepts.

The Christian Scriptures (NT) were written in Greek. We have texts dating from the 4th century.

The idea of the KJV was to have an English version of the Bible that was 'beautiful' in the English language. Sounds a bit old-fashioned now.

juice said:
many would claim that the letter J never existed before
Constantine ordain Christianity as a religion?
Click to expand...
He didn't ordain, he recognised Christianity which was a 'religion' from 30AD. The Christians never needed ordaining by any emperor!

Christianity was actually accepted as a religion before Constantine, and wasn't made the religion of state until after Constantine, by Emperor Theodosius I in 380AD ... so if you've been sold that 'Constantine invented Christianity' line, I'd dump it. It's all over the web, but it's rubbish.

The 'J' came from the Germanic languages into the Latin languages around 1500-1600AD to differentiate between various pronunciations of the letter I and the letter Y.

The English name 'Jesus' is from the Latin Iesus, itself from the Greek Iesous.

The Greek Iesous is the translation of such Hebrew names as Yehoshua and Yeshua, so working from the fact that Jesus was named in the Bible as Iesous, it's probable that he would have been named Yeshua, and he would have been called Yeshua ben Yosef (Yeshua the son of Yosef).
 
Thomas said:
Hi Juice –

I think we do. They were not included in the Canon of the Hebrew (OT) or Christian (NT) Scriptures because they weren't considered authentic or 'revealed by God' by the traditions that gathered the texts together.


The Jews rejected the Book of Enoch because they saw bits of it were copied from other Jewish texts. It's supposed to be written by the great grandfather of Noah, but then why is the book not mentioned when the Hebrew texts were compiled? Historians today place the book as being written 300-100BC.


Which bits of the Bible d'you mean?

The Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were written in Hebrew. A translation was made into Greek in Jerusalem some hundreds of years before Christ, and that includes some books written in Greek, which Judaism rejects, but which Christianity accepts.

The Christian Scriptures (NT) were written in Greek. We have texts dating from the 4th century.

The idea of the KJV was to have an English version of the Bible that was 'beautiful' in the English language. Sounds a bit old-fashioned now.


He didn't ordain, he recognised Christianity which was a 'religion' from 30AD. The Christians never needed ordaining by any emperor!

Christianity was actually accepted as a religion before Constantine, and wasn't made the religion of state until after Constantine, by Emperor Theodosius I in 380AD ... so if you've been sold that 'Constantine invented Christianity' line, I'd dump it. It's all over the web, but it's rubbish.

The 'J' came from the Germanic languages into the Latin languages around 1500-1600AD to differentiate between various pronunciations of the letter I and the letter Y.

The English name 'Jesus' is from the Latin Iesus, itself from the Greek Iesous.

The Greek Iesous is the translation of such Hebrew names as Yehoshua and Yeshua, so working from the fact that Jesus was named in the Bible as Iesous, it's probable that he would have been named Yeshua, and he would have been called Yeshua ben Yosef (Yeshua the son of Yosef).
Click to expand...
the name actually is numeric. If you trace it back it means 888 which is the number of the resurrected body.
 
donnann said:
the name actually is numeric. If you trace it back it means 888 which is the number of the resurrected body.
Click to expand...
I rather think that definition came after Christ ... I'd like to see a reference showing 888 = 'the resurrected body' before 30AD.
 
The canon of the Old Testament, if I remember rightly, was basically a matter of keeping the Hebrew books and excluding the Aramaic, keeping the old and excluding the very new. The majority of Christians (i.e. non-Protestants) keep many Aramaic books, that the Protestants call apocryphal. The Samaritans, on the other hand, only use the first five books of the OT. These, the Torah, are the oldest material, getting their final editing in the 7th century BC.

Enoch, which is in the Ethiopian Bible, was once very popular: Jesus got the title Son of Man for the Messiah from it.

The canon of the NT grew up very gradually. For example, it took a long time for Revelation to be accepted. Some people thought the author was the same John who wrote the Gospel, but as was pointed out at the time, the author of the Gospel wrote good Greek, while that of Revelation wrote what might be called camel-drivers' Greek!
 
Thomas said:
I rather think that definition came after Christ ... I'd like to see a reference showing 888 = 'the resurrected body' before 30AD.
Click to expand...
Just so I get this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you are asking for proof of a reference to a numeric name 40+ yrs before the OLDEST proof of biblical texts? Then If there was, could you commit it as evidence without asking who the author is, as well as their credibility?
 
DavidMcCann said:
The canon of the NT grew up very gradually. For example, it took a long time for Revelation to be accepted. Some people thought the author was the same John who wrote the Gospel, but as was pointed out at the time, the author of the Gospel wrote good Greek, while that of Revelation wrote what might be called camel-drivers' Greek!
Click to expand...
Either way it is unlikely that either "John" wrote any of the text we have today. One would be hard pressed to even suggest that it would be possible and maintain the individual's credentials to write the books.
 
Thomas said:
I rather think that definition came after Christ ... I'd like to see a reference showing 888 = 'the resurrected body' before 30AD.
Click to expand...
Here in the states it means ....toll free phone call....

but googling 888 numerology, I think I found everything but 'resurrected body'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top