Bacon Bible - How a Templar re-wrote the Bible

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: starheart

I'll tell you what the secret is, the Templars are with-holding advanced technology.
Very very Advanced technology.

a reply to: starheart

Well it doesnt matter anymore since its a new philosophy with old theology. Just need to apply it to the masses in a smooth way.

What they did was try to kill every single one of us who defended the secret ancient rituals and technology by declaring us enemies of the church and state, they stole everything,wrote it down, and said its ours, we call them librarians, they call themselves Gods. We guarded their secrets for a very long time, way before the Abraham books.
We listen, while they preach, we aknowledge, while they hate. We love, while they fear. They took everything we safeguarded within. We are foremost Guardians of Gaya, evertyhing else are symbols for mankind to follow. The proclaim themselves as more than our mother.

In September the new dawn begins, the last 700 years. Is no more. Our religion is the universe, always been. A Sun God is no more than a fantasy for humanity to follow. Its our time again.
It took over 500 years to undone what has been done. It will take a millenia from now to adjust it.

Anyone wanting to know the cypher can find it
by searching for Marty Leeds.
123456 7 654321
abcdef G hijklm
nopqrs T uvwxyz
God rested on the 7th day.
7, this is where G (God)
and the T square (the great work)
are found.

a reply to: starheart

KJV was indeed rewritten, that version was called NKJV or New King James Version. The original 1611 KJV was written in the pen of Francis Bacon yes. Not rewritten, but written. Or so the story goes. And the Templars didn't really exist at the time of Bacon, the Order went underground after the Dreadful Friday, I doubt Bacon had much to do with the Templars which was in all essence a Catholic Military Order. Bacon and King James were both Protestants. As for his fraternity, Francis Bacon was a Rosicrucian. RC.

a reply to: starheart

actually - for the pope to denounce the KJV as " written by templars " would be a win / win for the RCC

the templars were a banned organisation - demonised by the RRC

and the KJV was a PROTESTANT bible in ENGLISH 2 subjects that the greatly vexxed the RCC

a reply to: ignorant_ape

The Douay Rheims is a RC Vulgate written in English and published around the same time the great Protestant bibles came about, the Geneva and King James Version. KJV and the Geneva both rely mostly on a medieval manuscript written in Greek called the Textus Receptus. It has many errors, and a few traps. Reading the Textus Receptus, the first person reader is identified as Satan in Revelation for instance, and there are a few more things, like how they explain the highest order of angels, the Seraphim— as Beasts. KJV is thus nicknamed Satan's Bible.

a reply to: utnapisjtim

The Douay Rheims is a RC Vulgate written in English and published around the same time the great Protestant bibles came about, the Geneva and King James Version. KJV and the Geneva both rely mostly on a medieval manuscript written in Greek called the Textus Receptus. It has many errors, and a few traps. Reading the Textus Receptus, the first person reader is identified as Satan in Revelation for instance, and there are a few more things, like how they explain the highest order of angels, the Seraphim— as Beasts. KJV is thus nicknamed Satan's Bible.

The 1611 King James bible containes --
Wycliff version --------------------- 4%
Tyndale’s work & Matthew bible 18%
Coverdale’s work and Great bible 13%
Geneva bible and New Testament 19%
Bishiop’s bible and revisions ----- 4%
All other versions before 1611 ---- 3%
New Material ------------------------- 39%

Quote --
A manuscript is a hand-copied document. This was the method used for writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of printing. There are over 5,300 (5,309 to be exact) existing manuscripts of the Scriptures. Some of these manuscripts contain a large portion of scripture, while other are fragments.

Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived:

the Majority Texts (Textus Receptus), and

the Minority Texts (primarily the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus).

For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.
Unquote -- www.1611kingjamesbible.com...

For those who do not understand, the 39% of new material used in the translation of the KJV bible was also compared and scrutinized by many scholars of that day and found to be justly translated according to the majority autographs available at that time. The one man Bacon propaganda is just that. Propaganda.

It is true that out of the over 5,000 autographs we have today over 90% of them did not exist in 1611 but also that these additional finds since 1611 do agree with the majority texts of 1611and in no way do they contradict the 1611 translators.

The entire matter was closely monitored by the entire Christian ecclesia and not the desire of one group of so called masons. In fact the 1560 Geneva bible was the preferred bible of even our very own American pilgrims and surpassed the KJV bible for many years after its inception.

It is noted that King James of Scotland and England was indeed a sexually perverted man and it should also be noted that this criticism so angered James that he forbid any notes to be attached to the translation of the proposed KJV such as was in the Geneva Bible. This and the fact that he wanted to unite the kingdom with a more modern understanding of language was the purpose of this undertaking.

Well over 400 years we have read, criticized and compared this 1611 bible against the over 5,000 manuscripts and fragments that exist today and have found it it to be acceptable with the majority texts. I personally use the Eth Cepher simply because it contains Jasher, Enoch, Jubilee and many other such books as well as the Apocrypha. For well, over 60 years I used and sill refer to the KJV bible and find no major conflicts in either. They both are from the majority autographs.

a reply to: dollukka

Well I think it's pretty safe to say that he was more than just a human.

a reply to: divideandconquer

So, where can one get a bible written before the KJV? In English.

The 1560 Geneva bible was the most accepted 51 years before the KJV but is printed in old English. It was reprinted in modern English in 1599 so you may want the more modern English 1599 edition.
Download from internet here - www.genevabible.org... - to get an idea of what it looks like.

a reply to: Seede

All the versions you refer to (as far as I can see) are also «Textus Receptus-bibles». Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are OT manuscripts in Greek (Septuagints or LXXs).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

All the versions you refer to (as far as I can see) are also «Textus Receptus-bibles». Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are OT manuscripts in Greek (Septuagints or LXXs).

Yes they were but only because we were discussing Starhearts thread. In the above post I also stated that the more recent bibles are mostly from the minority of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and fragments.

The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

Most all bibles prior to this modern age were translated from the Textus Receptus which is the majority (95% or more) of all the Greek texts. Westcott and Hort used a throwaway complete manuscript (Codex Vaticanus , Codex Sinaiticus) to re write their own ideas. Actually it is not even a translation but mostly a transliteration interpretation. The Jehovah Witness used the 1611 KJV for a number of years till they also simply reworded the KJV to suite their own doctrine. That also is not a translation in the true sense but was enough for them to get their copy rights.

The Geneva Bible was a sore spot with King James because it quickened his practice of homosexuality and beastality. He tried to suppress it in his kingdom but failed. Actually the 1560 Geneva bible with the margin notes was the most accurate in its day and is my favorite reference bible even though I do use the KJV for comparative study. Of course you understand that all of this is my own preference and not intended to derail the other bibles. Everyone has their own preference and I respect that right.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

are OT manuscripts in Greek (Septuagints or LXXs).

Didn't mean to cut this out but will answer it as best I can.
The LXX is the Greek Septuagint which was translated from the Hebrew to Greek (about 200 BCE) The Hebrew texts that were used to translate into Greek Septuagint are lost for the most part. The King James bible used the Masoretic autographs which were available to them in the tenth century whereas the Catholic church preferred the Septuagint which was translated more than several hundred years before Christ. In effect the Septuagint (LXX) Greek OT is well over 1200 years older than the Masoretic OT. The dead sea scrolls confirm almost word for word the accuracy of the Masoretic text and are about 1,000 years older than the tenth century Tanakh. Still the Septuagint is the older of the tanakh's.

That would be a most interesting thread for some one. Lots of pro and con on both sides of the isle. The Hebrew bible (Tanakh) has been recently re translated in the 60's to meet the more modern English language which took about 30 years
to get translated and printed. It does read a lot different to people such as me.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

All the versions you refer to (as far as I can see) are also «Textus Receptus-bibles». Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are OT manuscripts in Greek (Septuagints or LXXs).

Yes they were but only because we were discussing Starhearts thread. In the above post I also stated that the more recent bibles are mostly from the minority of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and fragments.

The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

Most all bibles prior to this modern age were translated from the Textus Receptus which is the majority (95% or more) of all the Greek texts. Westcott and Hort used a throwaway complete manuscript (Codex Vaticanus , Codex Sinaiticus) to re write their own ideas. Actually it is not even a translation but mostly a transliteration interpretation. The Jehovah Witness used the 1611 KJV for a number of years till they also simply reworded the KJV to suite their own doctrine. That also is not a translation in the true sense but was enough for them to get their copy rights.

The Geneva Bible was a sore spot with King James because it quickened his practice of homosexuality and beastality. He tried to suppress it in his kingdom but failed. Actually the 1560 Geneva bible with the margin notes was the most accurate in its day and is my favorite reference bible even though I do use the KJV for comparative study. Of course you understand that all of this is my own preference and not intended to derail the other bibles. Everyone has their own preference and I respect that right.

What I call traditional or conservative, or rather, political (read: Protestant)-- bibles like the modern NIV and NAS and the 1611 KJV contain up to and more than 90% of the Receptus material at their core, since Luther and the others founded their whole crusade against the Catholic Church on the Receptus material. I would like to remind you that Textus Receptus, though written in Greek and carrying a Latin name, is a Late Medieval manuscripts that is based on limited material from around the 10th-11th centuries. Modern critical translations or modern Greek "source-texts" of the NT like the NA28 that is Netle-Aland's 28th edition published by United Bible Societies (UBS)-- are a result of rigorous studies and centuries worth of research and development. I'd say the best version around today is ESV. Essentially a literal or thought-by-thought (rather than word-by-word) translation based on the Heb. BHS and the Gr. UBS/Nestle-Aland for the most part, but also a wide variety of other sources naturally, even material such as the Syriac NT and the DSS and of course LXX and the Latin Vulgate, and of course ESV is the standard British bible translation, so it rests on the fine legacy and a long range of such British bibles, like the KJV and Wescott etc.

I'm afraid I have to read up on on this, and even that is an understatement, so my response here is limited at best. I need to beef up my church history and stuff like Hellenism and the major NT manuscripts and historical printed editions and so on. Since you mentioned the Geneva, I own a modern reprint of the 1599 Geneva with the original notes, and after leafing a bit you quickly understand how this must have been dynamite at the time it was released. The 1599 has a more modern tongue than the 1560 and grammatically it is nearly identical in language with KJV. A fun book to own.

Could you perhaps point me in some direction or the other in these matters? Good books on the subjects?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

are OT manuscripts in Greek (Septuagints or LXXs).

Didn't mean to cut this out but will answer it as best I can.
The LXX is the Greek Septuagint which was translated from the Hebrew to Greek (about 200 BCE) The Hebrew texts that were used to translate into Greek Septuagint are lost for the most part.

Indeed. Story goes the Roman emperor ordered a group of about 70 Greek Jews to make a Greek translation of the Torah. In the process, more and more material surfaced and the Septuagint ended up just about where the Christian OT is today in respect to books contained and how the material is ordered. There are however a wide list of books that were translated in Alexandria that was not normally rewritten or included when new editions came about. I have seen Septuagints with way more books than the regular canon.

The King James bible used the Masoretic autographs which were available to them in the tenth century whereas the Catholic church preferred the Septuagint which was translated more than several hundred years before Christ. In effect the Septuagint (LXX) Greek OT is well over 1200 years older than the Masoretic OT. The dead sea scrolls confirm almost word for word the accuracy of the Masoretic text and are about 1,000 years older than the tenth century Tanakh. Still the Septuagint is the older of the tanakh's.

All agreed. But there are indeed older fragments than the BHS and the Leningrad Codex in Hebrew/Aramaic, you mentioned DSS which brought about a few gems, the Isajah scroll for instance, and there are some pretty ancient privately owned Torah's around that we never hear anything about. There has been Syriac/Aramaic stuff surfacing-- But yeah, in essence the LXXs are the oldest-Old-testaments we have in respect to common OT-all-in-one-canon at least.

That would be a most interesting thread for some one. Lots of pro and con on both sides of the isle. The Hebrew bible (Tanakh) has been recently re translated in the 60's to meet the more modern English language which took about 30 years
to get translated and printed. It does read a lot different to people such as me.

Like I said, this is something I need to learn a lot more on before I can really discuss it, but I agree, a thread like this you mention would be great. I have tried to put one together earlier, but I scrapped it since I simply don't know enough about it to even make a decent OP and give a survey of the state of things. I know I'd participate if the thread came about, I'll keep it in mind, feel free to beat me to it though, maybe such a thread could manage to pull me back into this hellhole

originally posted by: Seede
That would be a most interesting thread for some one.

Too late to edit, but nevermind, here's another:
I put together a thread on the Nestle-Aland NT or The Nestle-Aland «Novum Testamentum Graece» that is the main foundation for most or all modern critical translations and possibly the most important text used in all sorts of serious NT bible studies:

==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

I challenge you to put together one on OT manuscripts and stuff like the textual traditions behind the Septuagints, the Leningrad Codex or the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Or something completely different of your own choosing of course

a reply to: starheart
Bacon was not a Templar. OTO is not a form of Freemasonry.

The 33rd degree is not referred to as the Order of the Knight Templar. The 33rd is known as the Inspector General and didn't exist until after 1801 when the Supreme Council was created in the US; prior to that there was just 25-degrees practiced. The Order of the Temple, or Knights Templar, is a part of the York Rite (in America), but even in Europe the earliest remnants of this Masonic order, and other Templar-ish orders, didn't start popping up until after 1738.

The earliest records of Freemasonry go back to 1599 and manuscripts to 926 AD, but Bacon's membership in Freemasonry is debated even among Masonic scholars and the theories is mostly based upon speculation. There's no way one can say that Bacon was a "high level" Mason.

Ciphers are not something used as a Masonic specialty. Many groups use ciphers.

The "secrets of the 32nd" do not concern some "Bible secret."

a reply to: starheart
Except I'm in the Knights Templar (a Past Commander and recipient of the Knight Templar Cross of Honor and Knight of the York Cross of Honor), but that doesn't bestow the 33rd upon me nor make me superior to them. The Knights Templar is one body in a confederated system known as the York Rite which is a separate rite from the Scottish Rite.

a reply to: KSigMason

Here in Norway we have an order that holds an enneagon as their logo carrying the name «Tempelridderordenen» which is the Norwegian name for «The Knights Templar» and they lodge together with the local Freemasons, a practically Lutheran one. They sometimes flag the true and ancient Templar cross from the Southern balcony. The various Temple lodges carry names like "Sjvstjernen" for instance, a Norwegian name for an astral constellation. I don't know if they consider themselves a continuance of the ancient military order carrying the same name, but I suspect so.

As a Knights Templar, do you know these Norwegian lodges, and is your own order the same one? Ye, and gods forbid— they have nothing to do with Anders Behring Breivik and the massacre at Utøya a few years back.