The word "Jew" was never existed in Roman times. They tell us it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It's the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The name Jew is analogous to the English appellative name "German" that refers to the people of Deutschland. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use the name to call themselves of their arch enemy?
It turns out the word Jew derives from a 16th Century Old English mis-transliteration of Yiddish. It stuck. This information is derived from English etymology. Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing. Here is what it concludes:
Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.
It conveniently leaves out any words of 'intentional' word manipulation or 'name-stealing'. In this regard, we are also left to believe the papacy arising out of the Roman era didn't manipulate Roman pagan holidays, including their names, to coincide with important Christian events. Well, we know this is in fact true. Why then is it ignored in other instances?
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. [There is no distinction](See https://web.archive.org/web/20120720012434/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios) between "Judahites," "Judeans" and "Jews" in modern standard Arabic. First appearance in Wikipedia, July 12, 2012. The word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites’. Fortunately, some scholars are starting to take notice.
Hebrew derives from Eber. Old French: Ebreu and Latin Hebraeus, from Gr Hebraios, from Aramaic ʻebrai (Heb ʻibrī), literally, one from the other side (of the Euphrates)
I will repost a post I made the other day, which I think more people should consider:
Now, imagine that you were a monk living 1,000 years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. It was not merely one of the denominations, and it was not something that only a few people followed.
It had MASSIVE control over the people of the day.
And the Roman Catholic Church had its own doctrines, whether they were in agreement or in conflict with the Bible.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
So ... you are a monk, and your task is to translate an early Hebrew text of one of the books of the Bible into Latin.
As you read through, you discover -- to your horror -- that the Hebrew you are reading is in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church doctrine!
IOW, the doctrine is WRONG.
But if you SAY that or WRITE that, then you are a heretic. The penalty for heresy was death. And not just any death. You would be burned alive at he stake for heresy.
So ... what do you do?
It should not be too difficult to accept that many of those early translations were falsified to appease the church doctrine.
This is the main reason why Christianity has gone off the rails with its false idol worship of jews, who were never the chosen ones.
Furthermore, this false idol worship is why people like Charlie say what they do, and why there is American money going to the jews in Palestine, which only causes more problems, ultimately.
This is what Martin Luther discovered in the 1500's, which lead to the protest, the Protestant Reformation, and a split away from the Catholics.
Yet today, the Catholic Church, in all its false doctrines, is still the largest denomination in the world -- due mostly to Latin America.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
Well, they WERE the organization who decided what it would and wouldn't be included in it. There was no Bible prior to them. Just writings of men believed to be holy scattered about and valued differently by all who had access to them. The Catholic Church got to decide which writings did and didn't make the cut in the first place, and I have no doubt altered what they kept to some degree for their own purposes. Not to mention, as is the case with all tyrannical governments looking to control the message, burned as many copies of as many of the other manuscripts that didn't fit their agenda.
But don't tell that to most Christians here. They've come up with their own story about the book basically popping into existence ex nihilo and that it's completely absurd to believe anyone ever could have altered anything for nefarious purposes. Where they got this idea is beyond me but they defend it tooth and nail for some reason nonetheless.
The ultimate authority has and will always be the Holy Spirit of God itself. Learn to communicate with God directly or even the Bible can and will lead you astray.
Good post. I'm not anti anything I'm pro truth. And I'm pro pointing out those who lie about who we are and the power we have. people have to decide if they want the doctrines and commandments of men falsely wrapped up and called biblical or the truth itself I adulterated. Organized religion, organized by who? Bible says the church is where ever 2 believers are together invisible name
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition
Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society
Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.
Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning
Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them.
Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him
Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him
Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups.
Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him.
John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who or what is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing,
because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,
ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth,
the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
The word "Jew" was never existed in Roman times. They tell us it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It's the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The name Jew is analogous to the English appellative name "German" that refers to the people of Deutschland. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use the name to call themselves of their arch enemy?
It turns out the word Jew derives from a 16th Century Old English mis-transliteration of Yiddish. It stuck. This information is derived from English etymology. Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing. Here is what it concludes:
Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.
It conveniently leaves out any words of 'intentional' word manipulation or 'name-stealing'. In this regard, we are also left to believe the papacy arising out of the Roman era didn't manipulate Roman pagan holidays, including their names, to coincide with important Christian events. Well, we know this is in fact true. Why then is it ignored in other instances?
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. [There is no distinction](See https://web.archive.org/web/20120720012434/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios) between "Judahites," "Judeans" and "Jews" in modern standard Arabic. First appearance in Wikipedia, July 12, 2012. The word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites’. Fortunately, some scholars are starting to take notice.
Correct, jew is modern. Hebrew means crossed over. As in over into captivity in Babylon.
Hebrew derives from Eber. Old French: Ebreu and Latin Hebraeus, from Gr Hebraios, from Aramaic ʻebrai (Heb ʻibrī), literally, one from the other side (of the Euphrates)
Yup, crossed over the river
I will repost a post I made the other day, which I think more people should consider:
Now, imagine that you were a monk living 1,000 years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. It was not merely one of the denominations, and it was not something that only a few people followed.
It had MASSIVE control over the people of the day.
And the Roman Catholic Church had its own doctrines, whether they were in agreement or in conflict with the Bible.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
So ... you are a monk, and your task is to translate an early Hebrew text of one of the books of the Bible into Latin.
As you read through, you discover -- to your horror -- that the Hebrew you are reading is in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church doctrine!
IOW, the doctrine is WRONG.
But if you SAY that or WRITE that, then you are a heretic. The penalty for heresy was death. And not just any death. You would be burned alive at he stake for heresy.
So ... what do you do?
It should not be too difficult to accept that many of those early translations were falsified to appease the church doctrine.
This is the main reason why Christianity has gone off the rails with its false idol worship of jews, who were never the chosen ones.
Furthermore, this false idol worship is why people like Charlie say what they do, and why there is American money going to the jews in Palestine, which only causes more problems, ultimately.
This is what Martin Luther discovered in the 1500's, which lead to the protest, the Protestant Reformation, and a split away from the Catholics.
Yet today, the Catholic Church, in all its false doctrines, is still the largest denomination in the world -- due mostly to Latin America.
Well, they WERE the organization who decided what it would and wouldn't be included in it. There was no Bible prior to them. Just writings of men believed to be holy scattered about and valued differently by all who had access to them. The Catholic Church got to decide which writings did and didn't make the cut in the first place, and I have no doubt altered what they kept to some degree for their own purposes. Not to mention, as is the case with all tyrannical governments looking to control the message, burned as many copies of as many of the other manuscripts that didn't fit their agenda.
But don't tell that to most Christians here. They've come up with their own story about the book basically popping into existence ex nihilo and that it's completely absurd to believe anyone ever could have altered anything for nefarious purposes. Where they got this idea is beyond me but they defend it tooth and nail for some reason nonetheless.
The ultimate authority has and will always be the Holy Spirit of God itself. Learn to communicate with God directly or even the Bible can and will lead you astray.
Good post. I'm not anti anything I'm pro truth. And I'm pro pointing out those who lie about who we are and the power we have. people have to decide if they want the doctrines and commandments of men falsely wrapped up and called biblical or the truth itself I adulterated. Organized religion, organized by who? Bible says the church is where ever 2 believers are together invisible name
Don't forget Scofield..........
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who or what is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.