Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Religion
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2010, 12:00 PM   #1
lcr123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 662
Default The rival to the bible

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

Last edited by lcr123; 06-08-2010 at 12:02 PM.
lcr123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 01:28 PM   #2
orlibonurb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,965
Default

http://www.answering-islam.org/
__________________
My blog & youtube channel (updated daily): http://comingworldwar3.wordpress.com / http://www.youtube.com/orlibonurb
orlibonurb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 01:36 PM   #3
cornilouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Default

very interesting find indeed, will have to look it up when the full translation comes online
cornilouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 01:41 PM   #4
nicolaj
Senior Member
 
nicolaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,413
Default

Tower of Babel predates the Arabian mythology of the moon god by approximately 2,300 years. The oldest manuscript of Arabian mythology dates back to 800-900 AD. The Tower of Babel dates back to approximately 3,500 BC (Before Common Era).

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre- Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre- Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. The hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.

So, just using the historical record, “Allah” is not related to the ancient Babylonian culture that created the Tower of Babel. Indeed, many of the roots of Islam seem to be found in the pantheon of deities associated with the mythology of the Arabian Peninsula. Archaeology has uncovered temples to the moon god dating back to ancient times. In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest . The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms."

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.
Your final question concerned the evolution of the Hebrew language. It is important to realize that the Hebrew spoken today in Israel is not the same as biblical Hebrew; this is equally true of the Greek we see in the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. Ancient Greek, like ancient Hebrew, is similar to their modern counterparts, but there are substantial differences as well.

Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite group of languages. Hebrew (Israel) and Moabite (Jordan) are Southern Canaanite while Phoenician (Lebanon) is Northern Canaanite. Canaanite is closely related to Aramaic and to a lesser extent South-Central Arabic. Whereas other Canaanite languages and dialects have become extinct, Hebrew has survived. Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in Israel from the 10th century BCE (Before Common Era) until just before the Byzantine Period in the 3rd or 4th century CE (Common Era). Afterward Hebrew continued as a literary language until the Modern Era when it was revived as a spoken language in the 19th century.

Hebrew is classified as a Semitic (or Shemitic, from Shem, the son of Noah) language. It would appear that after the Tower of Babel, the descendants of Japheth traveled north with their language, the descendants of Ham traveled southwest with their language and the Semites traveled west with their language. It is also correct that Eber is thought to be the original term that later became the label for his decedents, e.g. the Hebrews.

A more interesting question might be what was the language spoken prior to the Tower of Babel? It would seem that Hebrew would be a good educated guess in that the names of the pre-Flood patriarchs and others were of Hebrew derivation e.g. all the names of Adam's descendent we find that all the names from Adam to Noah and his children are Hebrew names, meaning that their name has a meaning in Hebrew. For instance, Methuselah (Genesis 5:21) is Hebrew for "his death brings" (The Flood occurred the year that he died). It is not until we come to Noah's grandchildren that we find names that are of a language other then Hebrew. For instance, the name Nimrod (Genesis 11:18), who was from Babylon/Sumer/Shinar and possibly the Tower of Babel, is a non-Hebrew name. According to the Biblical record of names, Adam and his descendants spoke Hebrew. In addition, Jewish tradition as well as some Christian scholars believed that Hebrew was the original language of man. While ancient Hebrew has similarities too.

I hope that these facts will help answer your questions concerning this interesting subject. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

Always in Messiah’s amazing grace,

Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D. (c)
Chief Technical Advisor
Creation Studies Institute

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/moon-god.html



Mark of the beast in arabic "In the name of Allah"
__________________
Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Last edited by nicolaj; 06-08-2010 at 04:28 PM.
nicolaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 03:49 PM   #5
drakul
Senior Member
 
drakul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,853
Default

The first link about the Codex Sinaiticus circa 200AD is very interesting. However since the codex was split up between 4 different countries and each country is doing their own translation, of course that leaves it wide open for concerned parties to leave out certain key words, phrases, even sections and no one would be the wiser. So there is no insurance that this is a complete Bible since there is nothing to check it by.

My sense of the article is that the main agenda here is to destroy the credibility of the current Bible and weaken Christianity with all those sheople who constantly bleat - `Moo moo - this is what the scripture says so it has to be true'.

The `translated' Codex Sinaiticus presents the Anti-Christs the perfect opportunity to say - well THIS Bible is older, therefore more authentic and it says something different or leaves out certain key phrases such as: `Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do'. WHAT - you mean Jesus did not forgive his tormentors from the cross? (undermines the whole foundation of Christianity - forgiveness and compassion). Works perfect - divide and conquer - make Christianity destroy itself from within.

As for your 2nd link re: Islam. I don't see what that has to do with the subject of this thread at all. Do you mind telling me?

Last edited by drakul; 06-08-2010 at 03:52 PM.
drakul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 04:25 PM   #6
luciferhorus
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Glastonbury, UK
Posts: 4,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcr123 View Post
Codex Sinaiticus

I think that what Codex Sinaiticus shows us, is that in an age where books and various writings were all written by hand, that scribes often had a tendency to change certain things and even add things to suit their own interpretations and beliefs.

The Gospel of Q

It has long been alleged by Biblical scholars (I refer to academics and not "fundamentalist" Bible believers) that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are three different versions which are all based on the same text which is referred to as the "The Gospel of Q."

This conclusion has been reached because of certain passages in these three Gospels which are not merely "similar" but rather are "identical." If there were three different scribes all relating the same stories from memory all three Gospels would not have identical texts.

Thus what we find with these three Gospels is probably the same original text which has simply been "added" to and elaborated; thus we find the three Gospels as essentially three different versions of the same text with certain additions.

The fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John which is thought to be much later than the Q based Gospels may be based on the text of the Q Gospels, but it does not contain the literal words and sentence construction of Q and is a much more "Greek" Gospel in contrast to the other three Judaic Gospels. Thus what we have is four different interprations by scribes, relating the story of a person who lived many years earlier, none of whom claim to have known the person of Jesus.

Similarly now with the Codex Sinaiticus text we find certain additions, deductions and changes, much as we would expect when a scribe rewrites something and adds and subtracts aspects of the story to suit his own person interpretation or misinterpretation.

So much for the allegedly "infallible," "unchanging" and "perfect" word of the omnipotent (all powerful) God, who is apparently not powerful enough to convince scribes not to change texts to suit their own interpretations and beliefs.

Lux

Codex Sinaiticus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm
"What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Anti-Semitic writings

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine's Monastery since at least the 4th Century.
The monastery at the base of Mt Sinai

It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.

Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses.

The monastery itself has the greatest library of early manuscripts outside the Vatican - some 33,000, and a collection of icons second to none.

Not surprisingly, it is now a World Heritage Site and has been called a veritable Ark, bringing spiritual treasures safely through the turbulent centuries. In many people's eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written around the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Discrepancies

Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.
The suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse had the Epistle of Barnabas remained

Professor Bart Ehrman

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God."

Last edited by luciferhorus; 06-08-2010 at 04:28 PM.
luciferhorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 04:25 PM   #7
chip1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Abbeville, South Carolina
Posts: 8,746
Default

All Words belong to GOD...It is as Simple as that...

The Word came from GOD...Not just Scripture you silly silly silly people...

He gives you the Ability to Speak them...

You should hear his beautiful Words that are spoken...You can not write them down as they are...They do lose some between your first receiving them and writing them down...

As First Heard they will bring Tears to your Eyes...

Last edited by chip1; 06-08-2010 at 04:28 PM.
chip1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 09:55 AM   #8
oiram
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost Oz "Unless they oppose it, they will be blamed for it. If they defend it, they are part of it."
Posts: 9,958
Exclamation The New Testament: Codex Sinaiticus Translated

This looks better!


The New Testament
Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript
Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai
By H. T. Anderson, 1918
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1059479216


All we need now is a nice PDF version ... Doawnload


oiram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 03:47 PM   #9
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,471
Default

Quote:
It (the Bible) should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.
Wishful thinking on the part of the author of the article and of course no chance for the "fundamentalists" to have a say in the article in response.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Last edited by logos880; 03-12-2010 at 03:56 PM.
logos880 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 03:52 PM   #10
marpat
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drakul View Post
The first link about the Codex Sinaiticus circa 200AD is very interesting. However since the codex was split up between 4 different countries and each country is doing their own translation, of course that leaves it wide open for concerned parties to leave out certain key words, phrases, even sections and no one would be the wiser. So there is no insurance that this is a complete Bible since there is nothing to check it by.

My sense of the article is that the main agenda here is to destroy the credibility of the current Bible and weaken Christianity with all those sheople who constantly bleat - `Moo moo - this is what the scripture says so it has to be true'.
The `translated' Codex Sinaiticus presents the Anti-Christs the perfect opportunity to say - well THIS Bible is older, therefore more authentic and it says something different or leaves out certain key phrases such as: `Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do'. WHAT - you mean Jesus did not forgive his tormentors from the cross? (undermines the whole foundation of Christianity - forgiveness and compassion). Works perfect - divide and conquer - make Christianity destroy itself from within.

As for your 2nd link re: Islam. I don't see what that has to do with the subject of this thread at all. Do you mind telling me?
The bible has credibility?
marpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 04:06 PM   #11
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marpat View Post
The bible has credibility?
I believe so.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.