origins of the Bible.
The way I would put it is that the Bible was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). I take it for granted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, for example, BUT ... many of the words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years.
Remember, the RCC for 1,000 years was the "official" view of what the Bible said, when most people could not read it. They couldn't even get their hands on the scrolls, unless they were monks living in a church. The average person had to rely on what the "expert" priests said it said.
Martin Luther was such a monumental figure because he found out that the Bible did NOT say what the RCC said it did, at least in important respects.
This is because (a) the RCC dogma was made up by the big wigs in the RCC, and (b) the translations were in some cases falsified.
Remember, it was heresy to say or write anything that contradicted the RCC doctrine, even if you could prove that the Bible said something different than the RCC doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was death.
So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the translations were incorrect, if only to not get your head chopped off or burned at the stake.
There is a growing movement to go back to the original scriptures (at least, as much as possible) and check what those words said in the original languages, to compare and contrast with what we see in our English versions today.
One simple example is the debate over monogamy vs. polygyny (a specific version of polygamy where it is one man and two or more wives). In the Bible, there is only one man, OT & NT, who we know had only one wife. That was Uriah (and his life turned to shit -- lol).
Every other man had more than one wife, or we don't know for sure how many. There is something like 30-40 men who the Bible explicitly says had more than one wife: Moses, 2; Abraham, 3; Jacob 4; David 17, etc.
Those who insist that the Bible says only monogamy is acceptable often cite passages in the NT where it says a church elder, deacon or bishop should only have one wife. That is the English translation.
But when we check the Greek, the word used was "mia," which does not mean "one" in that context. It means "first." He should (still) have his "first" wife (even if he also has others).
This is a prohibition against divorce (of the first, or any wife), and not an admonition against having multiple wives. These were to be leaders of the local church, so they should be upstanding men, and divorce, though not a sin, is not ideal.
That changes the meaning, doesn't it?
There are numerous examples of this throughout.
By far, the biggest lie we have been told is that the jews of today are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites ("God's Chosen People") of the Bible.
But we can clearly see that today's jews do not act anything like what we would expect God's Chosen to act. It doesn't make any sense.
Until ...
We realize that the Bible did not say the jews were the Israelites. "Jew" was an English word invented many centuries later, as the Bible was being translated into English.
Overall, the Bible is confusing to most people (myself included for most of my life). But when you realize much of its meaning has been altered, whether accidentally or intentionally, and you unravel it, the entire book not only makes sense, but it tells us what is going on today in our world.
Check out this vid on who the Israelites were, and who their descendents are today:
origins of the Bible.
The way I would put it is that the Bible was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). I take it for granted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, for example, BUT ... many of the words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years.
Remember, the RCC for 1,000 years was the "official" view of what the Bible said, when most people could not read it. They couldn't even get their hands on the scrolls, unless they were monks living in a church. The average person had to rely on what the "expert" priests said it said.
Martin Luther was such a monumental figure because he found out the the Bible did NOT say what the RCC said it did, at least in important respects.
This is because (a) the RCC dogma was made up by the big wigs in the RCC, and (b) the translations were in some cases falsified.
Remember, it was heresy to say or write anything that contradicted the RCC doctrine, even if you could prove that the Bible said something different than the RCC doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was death.
So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the translations were incorrect, if only to not get your head chopped off or burned at the stake.
There is a growing movement to go back to the original scriptures (at least, as much as possible) and check what those words said in the original languages, to compare and contrast with what we see in our English versions today.
One simple example is the debate over monogamy vs. polygyny (a specific version of polygamy where it is one man and two or more wives). In the Bible, there is only one man, OT & NT, who we know had only one wife. That was Uriah (and his life turned to shit -- lol).
Every other man had more than one wife, or we don't know for sure how many. There is something like 30-40 men who the Bible explicitly says had more than one wife: Moses, 2; Abraham, 3; Jacob 4; David 17, etc.
Those who insist that the Bible says only monogamy is acceptable often cite passages in the NT were it says a church elder, deacon or bishop should only have one wife. That is the English translation.
But when we check the Greek, the word used was "mia," which does not mean "one" in that context. It means "first." He should (still) have his "first" wife (even if he also has others).
This is a prohibition against divorce (of the first, or any wife), and not an admonition against having multiple wives. These were to be leaders of the local church, so they should be upstanding men, and divorce, though not a sin, is not ideal.
That changes the meaning, doesn't it?
There are numerous examples of this throughout.
By far, the biggest lie we have been told is that the jews of today are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites ("God's Chosen People") of the Bible.
But we can clearly see that today's jews do not act anything like what we would expect God's Chosen to act. It doesn't make any sense.
Until ...
We realize that the Bible did not say the jews were the Israelites. "Jew" was an English word invented many centuries later, as the Bible was being translated into English.
Overall, the Bible is confusing to most people (myself included for most of my life). But when you realize much of its meaning has been altered, whether accidentally or intentionally, and you unravel it, the entire book not only makes sense, but it tells us what is going on today in our world.
Check out this vid on who the Israelites were, and who their descendents are today:
origins of the Bible.
The way I would put it is that the Bible was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). I take it for granted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, for example, BUT ... many of the words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years.
Remember, the RCC for 1,000 years was the "official" view of what the Bible said, when most people could not read it. They couldn't even get their hands on the scrolls, unless they were monks living in a church. The average person had to rely on what the "expert" priests said it said.
Martin Luther was such a monumental figure because he found out the the Bible did NOT say what the RCC said it did, at least in important respects.
This is because (a) the RCC dogma was made up by the big wigs in the RCC, and (b) the translations were in some cases falsified.
Remember, it was heresy to say or write anything that contradicted the RCC doctrine, even if you could prove that the Bible said something different than the RCC doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was death.
So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the translations were incorrect, if only to not get your head chopped off or burned at the stake.
There is a growing movement to go back to the original scriptures (at least, as much as possible) and check what those words said in the original languages, to compare and contrast with what we see in our English versions today.
One simple example is the debate over monogamy vs. polygyny (a specific version of polygamy where it is one man and two or more wives). In the Bible, there is only one man, OT & NT, who we know had only one wife. That was Uriah (and his life turned to shit -- lol).
Every other man had more than one wife, or we don't know for sure how many. There is something like 30-40 men who the Bible explicitly says had more than one wife: Moses, 2; Abraham, 3; Jacob 4; David 17, etc.
Those who insist that the Bible says only monogamy is acceptable often cite passages in the NT were it says a church elder, deacon or bishop should only have one wife. That is the English translation.
But when we check the Greek, the word used was "mia," which does not mean "one" in that context. It means "first." He should (still) have his "first" wife (even if he also has others).
This is a prohibition against divorce (of the first, or any wife), and not an admonition against having multiple wives. These were to be leaders of the local church, so they should be upstanding men, and divorce, though not a sin, is not ideal.
That changes the meaning, doesn't it?
There are numerous examples of this throughout.
By far, the biggest lie we have been told is that the jews of today are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites ("God's Chosen People") of the Bible.
But we can clearly see that today's jews do not act anything like what we would expect God's Chosen to act like. It doesn't make any sense.
Until ...
We realize that the Bible did not say the jews were the Israelites. "Jew" was an English word invented many centuries later, as the Bible was being translated into English.
Check out this vid on who the Israelites were, and who their descendents are today:
origins of the Bible.
The way I would put it is that the Bible was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). I take it for granted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, for example, BUT ... many of the words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years.
Remember, the RCC for 1,000 years was the "official" view of what the Bible said, when most people could not read it. They couldn't even get their hands on the scrolls, unless they were monks living in a church. The average person had to rely on what the "expert" priests said it said.
Martin Luther was such a monumental figure because he found out the the Bible did NOT say what the RCC said it did, at least in important respects.
This is because (a) the RCC dogma was made up by the big wigs in the RCC, and (b) the translations were in some cases falsified.
Remember, it was heresy to say or write anything that contradicted the RCC doctrine, even if you could prove that the Bible said something different than the RCC doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was death.
So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the translations were incorrect, if only to not get your head chopped off or burned at the stake.
There is a growing movement to go back to the original scriptures (at least, as much as possible) and check what those words said in the original languages, to compare and contrast with what we see in our English versions today.
One simple example is the debate over monogamy vs. polygyny (a specific version of polygamy where it is one man and two or more wives). In the Bible, there is only one man, OT & NT, who we know had only one wife. That was Uriah (and his life turned to shit -- lol).
Every other man had more than one wife, or we don't know for sure how many. There is something like 30-40 men who the Bible explicitly says had more than one wife: Moses, 2; Abraham, 3; Jacob 4; David 17, etc.
Those who insist that the Bible says only monogamy is acceptable often cite passages in the NT were it says a church elder, deacon or bishop should only have one wife. That is the English translation.
But when we check the Greek, the word used was "mia," which does not mean "one" in that context. It means "first." He should (still) have his "first" wife (even if he also has others).
This is a prohibition against divorce (of the first, or any wife), and not an admonition against having multiple wives.
That changes the meaning, doesn't it.
There are numerous examples of this throughout.
By far, the biggest lie we have been told is that the jews of today are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites ("God's Chosen People") of the Bible.
But we can clearly see that today's jews do not act anything like what we would expect God's Chosen to act like. It doesn't make any sense.
Until ...
We realize that the Bible did not say the jews were the Israelites. "Jew" was an English word invented many centuries later, as the Bible was being translated into English.
Check out this vid on who the Israelites were, and who their descendents are today:
origins of the Bible.
The way I would put it is that the Bible was written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). I take it for granted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT, for example, BUT ... many of the words and phrases have been mistranslated over the years.
Remember, the RCC for 1,000 years was the "official" view of what the Bible said, when most people could not read it. They couldn't even get their hands on the scrolls, unless they were monks living in a church. The average person had to rely on what the "expert" priests said it said.
Martin Luther was such a monumental figure because he found out the the Bible did NOT say what the RCC said it did, at least in important respects.
This is because (a) the RCC dogma was made up by the big wigs in the RCC, and (b) the translations were in some cases falsified.
Remember, it was heresy to say or write anything that contradicted the RCC doctrine, even if you could prove that the Bible said something different than the RCC doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was death.
So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the translations were incorrect, if only to not get your head chopped off or burned at the stake.
There is a growing movement to go back to the original scriptures (at least, as much as possible) and check what those words said in the original languages, to compare and contrast with what we see in our English versions today.
One simple example is the debate over monogamy vs. polygyny (a specific version of polygamy where it is one man and two or more wives). In the Bible, there is only one man, OT & NT, who we know had only one wife. Every other man had more than one wife, or we don't know for sure how many. There is something like 30-40 men who the Bible explicitly says had more than one wife: Moses, 2; Abraham, 3; Jacob 4; David 17, etc.
Those who insist that the Bible says only monogamy is acceptable often cite passages in the NT were it says a church elder, deacon or bishop should only have one wife. That is the English translation.
But when we check the Greek, the word used was "mia," which does not mean "one" in that context. It means "first." He should (still) have his "first" wife (even if he also has others).
This is a prohibition against divorce (of the first, or any wife), and not an admonition against having multiple wives.
That changes the meaning, doesn't it.
There are numerous examples of this throughout.
By far, the biggest lie we have been told is that the jews of today are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites ("God's Chosen People") of the Bible.
But we can clearly see that today's jews do not act anything like what we would expect God's Chosen to act like. It doesn't make any sense.
Until ...
We realize that the Bible did not say the jews were the Israelites. "Jew" was an English word invented many centuries later, as the Bible was being translated into English.
Check out this vid on who the Israelites were, and who their descendents are today: