No announcement yet.

Bible Origins

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bible Origins

    Quick Guide to Bible Versions

    Historic - Major Catholic, Anglican/Protestant Versions ( -1800)

    · Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

    · Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].

    · Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].

    · Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.

    · Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.

    · Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].

    · Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches".

    · Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.

    · Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.

    · Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"].

    · King James (or Authorized) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].

    Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)

    · Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.

    · American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.

    · Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible.

    · Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.

    · Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago" Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.

    · Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).

    · Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.

    · Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

    · Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].

    · New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.

    · New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.

    · New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.

    · Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation".

    · New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

    · Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.

    · New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text.

    · New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.

    · New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV.

    · Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.

    Note: There may be others not included in this list.

  • #2

    Links to various data banks of papyri, including the massive Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri (DDBDP), which can be either browsed or searched.

    The Manuscripts of Paul
    Textual critics are dependent on their materials -- in this case, manuscripts. But how is a student to know which manuscripts contain which text? No one can possibly examine all the manuscripts now available.

    To make matters worse, not all editors agree on the nature of the text found in the manuscripts.


    • #3
      Japanese had recorded the Old Testament


      • #4
        It would seem no one can agree.

        May YHWH have mercy on us all!


        • #5
          interesting site

          May YHWH have mercy on us all!


          • #6
            Shalom Everyone,

            Scripture Category by Media - Encarta ® Online Deluxe

            Exodus: Exodus, traditionally ascribed to Moses, is believed by most modern scholars to have been compiled in its present form by members of the priesthood around 550 BC. Certain parts of the book (for example, chap. 25-31), in which God describes to Moses the manner in which the Tabernacle and its furnishings are to be built, and the dress and ritual of the priests, are thought to date from earlier times. The section containing the code of religious and civil ordinances (20:23-23:33) is of even greater antiquity and may possibly have originated in pre-Mosaic times.
            "Exodus," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
   © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

            Leviticus: III. Authorship
            Scholars maintain that the codes preserved in Leviticus were compiled by priests of the Temple in Jerusalem in the 5th century BC. Customs and cultic materials dating from earlier periods and belonging to other Israelite sanctuaries were incorporated at that time into such priestly compilations as part of a larger centralized system of ethical injunctions and ceremonial law governing the social and religious affairs of the postexilic Jewish community. The Holiness Code, for instance, is assigned to the 7th century BC by some scholars, because they feel that it is similar in spirit and language to the 7th-century Deuteronomic code.

            "Leviticus," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
   © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

            Deuteronomy: The literary history of the book, in particular the material in the code of laws, is complicated and much disputed. Some scholars view most of the contents as traditional material passed down orally from the 8th century BC, recorded in the 7th century, lost, then rediscovered as reported in 2 Kings 22, 23 and in 2 Chronicles 34, 35. These chapters tell of the finding of a book of law in the First Temple during the reign of the Judean king Josiah. Other scholars believe that most of Deuteronomy was composed late in the 7th century BC and attributed to Moses to lend weight to important religious reforms carried out by Josiah in 622-621 BC. The centralizing of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was a primary concern of the king, and this concern is heavily emphasized by the author (or authors) of Deuteronomy.

            "Deuteronomy," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
   © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

            Mathew: II. Authorship
            Early Christian writers believed this book to be the earliest of the synoptic Gospels (hence its position at the beginning of the New Testament) and attributed it to Saint Matthew, one of the 12 apostles. They believed that he wrote the Gospel in Palestine, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Although this opinion is still held by some, most scholars consider the Gospel According to Mark the earliest Gospel. They believe, on the basis of both external and internal evidence, that the author of Matthew used Mark as one of his two major sources and a hypothetical collection of Jesus' sayings called Q (from Quelle, German for "source") as the second. They doubt, moreover, that the apostle Matthew wrote the book. Whoever the actual author was, he is identified as a Jew partly because his Gospel contains numerous references to Jewish Scripture, law, and ways of life that presuppose the reader's familiarity with them, and partly because other evidence suggests that he wrote chiefly for Christians of Jewish origin. The place where the Gospel was written is not definitely known. Some authorities think it was Palestine; others favor another early Christian center, possibly the city of Antioch in Syria. The commonly accepted time of composition is sometime after 70, perhaps about 80.

            "Matthew, Gospel According to," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
   © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

            Mark: II. Authorship
            The earliest evidence pertinent to the authorship of Mark comes from the 3rd-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who quotes an earlier writer named Papias. Papias himself quotes a statement concerning Mark's Gospel by a still earlier figure whom he calls the "presbyter" (elder): "And the presbyter used to say this: 'Mark, being Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately, but not in order, that which he remembered of what was said and done by the Lord.'!" It is virtually certain that, in Papias's opinion, this Mark was the John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, mentioned in Acts (see, for instance, Acts 15:37-39), in several letters of Paul (see Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24), and in 1 Peter 5:13. Critical research has been able neither to prove nor to disprove this opinion, but there are reasons to doubt it.

            Early Christians tended to link the gospels with one of the 12 apostles. If the text was firmly attributed by early tradition to a man named Mark, Papias's presbyter probably did the best he could with this tradition by identifying this Mark with John Mark in order to link him to the apostle Peter. Hence, many scholars believe that the Gospel was written by an otherwise unknown early Christian named Mark who drew on a large number of traditions in order to compose a tightly organized and compelling narrative.

            III. Date and Place of Composition
            In chapter 13, Mark refers to the destruction of Jerusalem either as an event that may shortly happen or as one that has recently happened. Consequently, although scholars do not know whether to date the Gospel shortly before or shortly after AD70, it is virtually certain that it is not far removed from that date.

            A tradition as early as the 2nd-century Greek theologian Clement of Alexandria gives Rome as the place of composition, but that view is probably dependent on the assumption that the author wrote down things said by Peter. Clues in the Gospel itself have suggested to numerous scholars that it may have been written in Galilee or Syria.

            VI. The Conclusion of the Gospel
            There are two textual traditions for the ending of the gospel. The majority of Greek manuscripts have the "long ending," closing with 16:20, but a smaller number extend only through 16:8. The dominant scholarly opinion is that the shorter version is the earlier one—that Mark came to his intended closure with 16:8, and that a 2nd-century scribe, finding that an abrupt and unsatisfying ending, drew on the Gospel of Luke in order to compose what seemed to him a more satisfying conclusion.

            Contributed By:
            J. Louis Martyn, M.A., Ph.D.
            Edward Robinson Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary. Author of History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel and The Gospel of John in Christian History.

            "Mark, Gospel According to," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
   © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
            "At that day
            shall a man look to his Maker,
            and his eyes shall have respect
            to the Holy One of Israel."
            Isaiah 17:7


            • #7

              Luke: II. Authorship
              Church tradition dating from the end of the 2nd century attributes this Gospel to "Luke, the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14), one of the "fellow workers" (Philemon 1:24) mentioned by Saint Paul. The same tradition also attributes to Luke (see Luke, Saint) the Acts of the Apostles, which, together with the Gospel bearing his name, is commonly regarded as having formed a larger work on the origin of Christianity. Most modern scholars accept Luke's authorship of both works. Some scholars, however, because of factual contradictions between Paul's letters and the accounts of Paul in Acts, doubt that Luke and Paul were closely associated during Paul's missionary work.

              It is now generally agreed that the Gospel of Luke dates from the decade 70 to 80. Earlier or later dates have also been proposed: if, as some have suggested, Acts was written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, Luke's Gospel could have been written about 63 to 65; if the absence before then of any reference to the Gospel in the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church is taken as proof of a later date, it is possible that Luke's Gospel was composed at the end of the 1st century. It is unknown whether the Gospel was written in Rome, Asia Minor, or Greece.

              The Gospel of Luke appears to have been written primarily for use among the Gentiles. The writer's aim clearly is to be universal, for Luke, more than Matthew and Mark, attempts to set the person and ministry of Jesus against the backdrop of world history. By tracing the ancestry of Jesus all the way to Adam, the first man, Luke underscores the universality of Christ's mission. Little touches throughout the narrative keep this motif of universality before the reader. Luke alone records that soldiers (who must have been Gentiles) came to be baptized by John the Baptist (3:14); no other evangelist displays such concern for the Samaritans (9:51-56, 17:11-19); and his Gospel looks forward to the day when the word of the Lord will be heard and will prevail in "all nations" (24:47). Also characteristic of Luke are his concern for just social relationships, particularly for the proper relationship between rich and poor; his concern for sinners and social outcasts; and a sympathetic concern, unique among the evangelists, for women (7:11-17, 7:36-50, 8:1-3).

              "Luke, Gospel According to," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
     © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

              John: II. The Author
              Since the 19th century the authorship of the Gospel of John has generated heated controversy. Conservative scholars today generally accept John the Evangelist as the author, but most scholars, who are not prepared to defend the view that the author was an apostle and an eyewitness to the events recorded in the book, have proposed several different hypotheses. Chief among these hypotheses are that the fourth canonical Gospel was written by "the elder" mentioned in the Second and Third Epistles of John (see John, Epistles of); that it was composed by a disciple of John the Evangelist (and so was based, in part, on John's recollections of the Gospel events); that it may have been written by a friend of Jesus Christ, Lazarus of Bethany; or that it was written by an anonymous Christian in Alexandria in the first half of the 2nd century. Most moderate scholars now date John from sometime in the last decade of the 1st century or early in the 2nd century.

              "John, Gospel According to," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001
     © 1997-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

              "At that day
              shall a man look to his Maker,
              and his eyes shall have respect
              to the Holy One of Israel."
              Isaiah 17:7


              • #8
                Two in One

                Many stories in the Old Testament are actually two stories intertwined in an attempt to make them one.

                Some examples are:
                • The creation (Genesis 1-2)
                  The story of Noah (Genesis 5-10)
                  The story of Abram/Abraham (Genesis 11-25)

                These stories can be separated by distinguishing what the Almighty is called by the writer.

                For example, in the KJV translation you can distinguish the separate stories by looking at the way they used the words God (substituted in place of elohim) versus LORD God (substituted in place of YHUH Elohim). In Genesis 1:1-2:3 God/Elohim is used and in Genesis 2-3 LORD God/YHUH Elohim is used.

                We can go even further and find evidence that there are actually four sources that make up the Old Testament. They are identified by the religious community as:
                • J or Yahwist
                  E or Elohist
                  P or Priestly
                  D or Deuteronomist

                Yah·wist [ywist ] or Yah·vist [yvist ] noun
                Bible writer using Tetragrammaton: the unknown writer of the parts of the Old Testament of the Bible in which a set of four letters (Tetragrammaton) is used to refer to God. Also called Jehovist

                Elohist E·lo·hist [ l hist , éll hist ] (plural E·lo·hists) noun
                author of parts of Bible: the author of any of the books of the Bible in which God is given the title "Elohim" rather than "YHWH" or "Yahweh"

                ...The Hebrew priest and reformer Ezra, whose work is associated with another textual component of the Pentateuch known as the Priestly stratum (P)...

                Deuteronomist Deu·ter·on·o·mist [dt rَnnmist ] (plural Deu·ter·on·o·mists) noun
                author of Deuteronomy: one of the authors of Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible

                I will post additional information concerning this in a separate post.


                • #9

                  Shalom Everyone,

                  Well... I read the Whole encyclopedia that I posted above. If anyone has any trouble getting to... or understanding how to "use" the site, feel free to email me.

                  I found it very interesting. It seems the "whole" bible, both covenants or testements Depended a lot on "man". Not only on his memory, but also on translations and trying to choose which manuscript is oldest/original/genuine etc. It couldn't/can't be easy.
                  In our minds it starts out like a "conspiracy theory" but after studying so much myself, I realize we are all doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

                  However, I STILL believe in a "devine" insperation to write. And do not believe it is limited to that which is written in the bible. Nor do I believe that every "word" written is necessarily "inspired" but the bulk and "train of thought" or "jest" of the story I believe is. And the main reason being is > ; "Gospel according to the scriptures". For there are things that "line up" just too well for it to be of "man". And like I said... I have noticed many "common" things amongst all of the religions of the world.

                  The Gailic Irish Cutlture has "feasts and holy days" that are almost identical to the feasts in the bible.
                  Zarathrushtra taught as Yahshua did: "Right thought, right word, right deed" was his main stream doctrine and "ya get what ya give" so to speak. Zarathrushtra held the "7th. day sacred". But taught against animal sacrifice...
                  Even Zues (Greek Mythology) there is a flood where only one family was saved by Posiden (-o- of the sea)

                  Most of all I believe that Yah, our creator and maker has "planned" and "purposed" all along to "dwell with us" or "tabernacle with us". It is so in "all" written scriptures WORLD WIDE regardless of spoken name or religion. There are things that 'all" writings have in common that I have noticed that cannot be of "man". Or if they are "of man' then it is something that is "inate" in "all" men/women and therefore a "common ground". or a "unity", if you will.

                  For those that read the above info on the bible and are "troubled" or disheartned by it. I would encourage you to broaden your 'standard" of what is of Yah by taking it to 'nature". For "all" things of our Creator is manifested in HIS "Creation". And I urge you to ponder the "caterpillar/ butterfly".

                  I also urge those who read the bible to find out what the "names" in the bible "mean".
                  It is amazing how if you replace the "name" with the "meaning of the name" in a scripture the "light' it takes on.

                  For example we are to inherit "Canaans land". Which means "humble". And believe you me when ever one approaches unto YAH they are "humbled" real quick. NO one could be in the presence of YAH and not know that in comparison they are absolutely nothing but dust.
                  Therefore each and everyone of us does indeed "inherit Canaans land".

                  Over and over YAH reminds us that it is HE that DELIVERS us from the land of "Egypt". And what does "Egypt" mean?

                  H4714 ~yIr;c.mi Mitsrayim {mits-rah'-yim} ¤ dual of 04693; ¤ n pr loc
                  Egypt = "land of the Copts" 1) a country at the northeastern section of Africa,
                  adjacent to Palestine, and through which the Nile flows
                  adj Egyptians = "double straits" 2) the inhabitants or natives of Egypt

                  as a "noun, pronoun or location" They "say" Egypt means:
                  "land of the Copts".
                  But there is no part of the word itself that means this.
                  But as an "adjective" Egyptians means; "double straits". And when you break down the word itself and follow it to it's primitive root it means just that.

                  H4693 rAcm' matsowr {maw-tsore'} ¤ the same as 04692 in the sense of a limit; ¤ 1) "Matsor", a name for Egypt
                  2) (TWOT) siege, entrenchment

                  04692 is > from: 6696 which is a primitive root. >
                  H6696 rWc tsuwr {tsoor} ¤ a primitive root; ¤
                  1) to bind, besiege, confine, cramp...

                  Egypt basically means to be "bound" or trapped or something to the like. And we all know that it is indeed YAH and only YAH that delivers us from this.

                  Zechariah 10:10 I will bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; and place shall not be found for them.

                  I think it is quite obvious that YAH is naming these places indeed as "adjectives". There is a reason and a purpose that He chose these places so I do not think it presumptious at all for us to find out what these names mean.

                  "out of this" > Egypt: bondage/ entrapment / slavery etc. (does not sin do this to us?)

                  and; "out from this" >
                  H804 rWVa; 'Ashshuwr {ash-shoor'} ¤ apparently from 0833 (in the sense of successful); ¤ Asshur or Assyria = "a step" n pr m

                  H833 rv;a' 'ashar {aw-shar'} a primitive root; ¤
                  1) to go straight, walk, go on, advance, make progress...

                  I see Him taking us "out" of > just going through the "steps" or the "walk" or the "rituals".

                  And bring us unto:
                  H1568 d['l.GI Gil`ad {ghil-awd'} ¤ probably from 01567;
                  ¤ n pr loc Gilead = "rocky region"

                  H1567 d[el.G: Gal`ed {gal-ade'} ¤ from 01530 and 05707;;
                  n pr loc ¤ ¤ Galeed = "witness heap" 1) the pile of stones heaped up between Jacob and Laban to certify their covenant; located on Mt Gilead

                  1530 means "heap", spring, billow and is from > 1556 which is a prim. root: which means > 1) to roll, roll away, roll down, roll together...

                  And 5707 means "Witness" which is contracted from 5749 which is a prim. root and means to return or repeat again.

                  So in fact Gilead would actually "mean" the two prim. root words put together which would be something like;
                  to "roll" or put together the "witnesses" over and over.
                  And Yah is going to bring us unto this.

                  And unto this >
                  H3844 !Anb'l. [email protected] {leb-aw-nohn'} ¤ from 03825; ¤ Lebanon = "whiteness"

                  H3825 bb;l. [email protected] (Aramaic) {leb-ab'} ¤ corresponding to 03824
                  ¤ 1) heart, mind

                  H3823 bb;l' labab {law-bab'} ¤ a primitive root; ¤ 1) to ravish, become intelligent, get a mind (Niphal) to take heart, become enheartened, become intelligent (Piel) to ravish the heart, encourage, make heart beat faster
                  2) (Piel) to make cakes, bake cakes, cook bread

                  It seems to me that YAH is going to bring us out of the "land" (we are made of the earth. our very mind is a "land" that we dwell in)
                  of "double straits" or "entrenchment" or from being "bound" (Egypt)
                  And out of the land of: "a step" ; just going through the steps or the walk or rituals.

                  And INTO :
                  "a heap of witnesses" based upon the ROCK (Yahshua/Yahs salvation) and taking it to heart, or into our heart or into a knowledge and understanding of YAHS SALVATION "within" us.

                  " no place be found for them" Hence; it is not on the outside of us... but on the Inside of us. And it is not found in religion or doctrine but it is found through the spirit of understanding. Through Yah revealing himself to us. Through looking at the "works of Yah" and not "the works of man".

                  "Gilead is mine" says Yah (in psalms) This means the witnesses are HIS! or the "putting together the witnesses is from Him I should say.

                  ("we are covered with such a cloud of WITNESSES") (Heb. 12:1)

                  All things are "witnesses". throughout all of creation there stands an undeniable "transformation". Wether it be a caterpillar to butterfly or larva to moth or tad pole to frog, or eggs to fowl/fish etc. sperm to embrio to human. from child to
                  adult... there is a constant "circle" to growth and process that is preached throughout all of creation... Let alone in all scriptures that man holds dear or devine.

                  So just because that written text we have is supposedly founded on memory etc. The witnesses in YAHS creation alone testify to the very doctrine we hold so dear.
                  And that is the doctrine of TRANSFORMATION. Which is truly truly undeniably POSSIBLE and INEVETIBLE according to nature itself.

                  Believe in that which is good.
                  All of creation takes on this transformation in one way or another... and a thing to keep in mind is... It happens not according to them, or their plan or their efforts... it happens automatically. it happened WITHIN them first... then the
                  outside manifested what took place on the INSIDE.
                  All of their organs etc. changed BEFORE their physical body changed. understand?

                  "Lo, the kingdom is within you".

                  All of nature takes on a "transformation" of some sort and is saved from it's earlier existance. You/WE can BELIEVE in Yahs salvation for us. For why would Yah do any differently with man whom He must love?
                  He wouldn't. But He will do just as He says He will do. He will save His people.
                  (I don't care what anyone says, ALL people are His people in the long run)

                  I am not afraid of science and questionings etc. Even if man did come from ape (which I am not convinced in the slightest that we did) it would not do anything but confirm the gospel of death,burial, resurrection. For it would only confirm
                  the manifestation of a 'transformation" which is all prophecy of it taking place on THE INSIDE of us. Which I believe IS... and HAS... and will CONTINUE... to take place on the inside of man in his heart and mind. Until Yah brings us all into one accord with HIM.

                  We need not fear man, and wether or not he "muffled" the scriptures. But fear only the one who made you and can slay you, And ask for Him to give us an "honest" walk, that we may accelerate or "snowball" toward HIM.

                  It doesn't get any narrower than; "Honesty". I am convinced it is the "narrow path, and few there be that find it."

                  "At that day
                  shall a man look to his Maker,
                  and his eyes shall have respect
                  to the Holy One of Israel."
                  Isaiah 17:7


                  • #10
                    That was pretty good Sister!

                    May YHWH have mercy on us all!


                    • #11
                      Thanks Bro! To be honest... I think that post was for me as much for anyone else. I felt a lot better after that post. I had been struggling with a lot of alleged "factual" information.
                      But when I started writing that post ... things suddenly seemed "clear" and simple. It was down right joyful !
                      I do thank Yahshua. "seek and ye shall find"... "ask and ye shall receive"... He really does deliver huh! It's amazing.

                      Anyway... thanks for the "thumbs up". (big smile).

                      "At that day
                      shall a man look to his Maker,
                      and his eyes shall have respect
                      to the Holy One of Israel."
                      Isaiah 17:7