Masonic Bible Deliberately Missing Entire Page That Contains Psalm 68?

reply to post by EfficientP


From BibleGateway.com

Isaiah 12:2 King James Version (KJV) 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength:

Psalm 68:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah, and rejoice before him.

Each of those wordings form the Bible Gateway site are identical to the wording in my Father's Masonic Bible.

Not one of them is what you describe as the wording in your copy. It would appear that the Masonic version matches the acknowledged 'correct' text, and your doesn't. Have you considered the possibility that it is your copy that is odd? What is its provenance, did its printers have some agenda to 'correct' the text for its own purposes? Should you perhaps look there for conspiracy instead of in Freemasonry?

Who came up with the name Jehovah?

Are you really interested in following that thought to actual historical scholarship or are you stuck in the English translations of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic is the definitive wordings. In other words do you accept that Moses didn't write the Septugint, (at least all by himself) and there were actually several writers and editors involved in the work we now know. Seems to me you need to ask who came up with the idea of substituting the word 'YAH' for 'Lord Jehovah' and 'JAH'.

I believe that the current Biblical scholarship 'best' thought is that (in simple terms) 'Yahweh' and 'Jehovah' were the local gods of neighboring Palestinian tribes with similar mythology, most likely, one tribe was hunter/gather and the other planter/harvester. In time the tribes merged and their mythology blended. Many Bible stories are told twice due to this blending, for example the well known two different creation stories in Genesis.

It looks to me that whoever modified the text in your edition did so to try to reconcile the double mythology origins. The Revised Standard Version uses the term "Lord God" instead of "Lord Jehovah" or "Jah", presumably for the same reason.

EDIT: here is another take on the issue: JEHOVAH, Yahweh, Ehyeh, Yave, Yahawah, Yahovah, Iabe, Jahveh, Yahu or Yahoo? This writer is apparently not aware of the double mythology 'blending', however he(she?) does point out the difference between the KJV and the NKJV (New KJV) and other versions.

reply to post by rnaa


Hey, I think I meant to say NEW King James vs the Masonic ( somewhere I heard it is King James version) Bible.




I'll repost an interesting snippet that that I got from this link that might shed light on what could be the truth:
www.catholic.com...

About the 13th century the term "Jehovah" appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced it with the vowels of "Adonai." This resulted in the sound "Yahowah," which has a Latinized spelling of "Jehovah." The first recorded use of this spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270.

[color=palevioletred]Interestingly, this fact is admitted in much Jehovah's Witness literature, such as their Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 885). This is surprising because Jehovah's Witnesses loathe the Catholic Church and have done everything in their power to strip their church of traces of Catholicism. Despite this, their group's very name contains a Catholic "invention," the name "Jehovah."

Jehovah's Witnesses blast orthodox Christendom for "hiding the name of God" by replacing "Jehovah" with "the Lord" whenever "Jehovah" appears in Scripture. They charge this is a Jewish "superstition" that dishonors God (which it does not). Yet their own organization has a name that was invented as a result of the same thinking that produced use of "the Lord."

reply to post by EfficientP

Hey, I think I meant to say NEW King James vs the Masonic ( somewhere I heard it is King James version) Bible.

So you have your answer then? The Masonic editions are the King James Bible, not the New KJV. I cannot speak for CURRENT commissions (my Dad's was commissioned in the 1940's and incorporated work in addition to the Bible text from as far back as the 1920's (or so) or every Masonic Grand Chapter that orders Bibles. But the NKJV text is different from the KJV text because the editors chose to make it different for what ever agenda they were commissioned to satisfy. You'll need to seek out that original commission specification for an insight as to why the wording was changed.

There is nothing "special" about a "Masonic Bible"; the scriptural text is the scriptural text. What makes it a Masonic Bible is the additional Masonic reference material added when the printing run is commissioned. It may well be that there are several companies that print Bibles, each with their own set of 'additional material', competing for the contract to supply the Masonic Grand Lodges. This might explain the 'Babylonian' references in the Bible described in the video. As Frank Zappa would say its "strictly commercial".