What is the Source of the Bible?

It would seem logical that the learned church fathers who prepared the manuscripts for the printing of the KJB would have had access to the original texts.  The texts from which they interpreted the 66 books.  The same text used almost 300 years later by the team of 100 scholars used to shed light upon the original writings.

If so, then why did they only translate a handful of innocuous words?  Words whose true meanings would not in any way detract from the religious myths that had been taught for hundreds of years.

Why did they use the transliterated groups of letters; which were not words. But represent the true meaning in the original languages.  Why in some cases did they give us the meaning of those transliterated groups of letters.  Then using the same group of transliterated letters add a capital, which was then used as a word; instead of the true meaning of the word?  Capital letters infer the name of some person, place or important thing.

If on the other hand, for some reason, they did not have access to the same original documents as the 100 scholars that developed the James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance; then what did they use as the basis for the Biblical stories?  Stories, i.e. religious myths that had been taught for hundreds of  years prior to the Bible.

Not to mention the glut of added English words to tell the myths.

Revelation tells us that it is a very little book; sweet in the mouth; bitter in the belly.  Bitters are digestive aids.   First we must digest out all of those added English words.  Then use the true meaning of words used by the original authors.

What is left is a very tiny book.  What is noticeable absent is the concepts  of sin, shame, blame, guilt, judgement, condemnation, etc.  What we discover is the view of the authors who scribed the 66 books between 1845BC to 70AD.  A view of creation, the passing of the ages; the stories written in the heavens.

There are no translations.   There is only interpretations and thousands of other Bibles all based on the KJB.  None of the original texts were written in Latin, nor Greek.  They were written  in Chaldean and Hebrew using words from many different languages, Persian, Babylonian, Aramaic, Egyptian, Oriental, Syrian, etc.  Not to mention words whose original languages were not identified.  None of these languages use capital letters.


Religious Boogeyman Satan

Where does the word Satan come from?

In the original text of the OLD Testament there a word that means opponent is TRANSLITERATED into the letters s a t a n.  Religious interpreters of the New Testament made the s a capital letter and treated the four letters as a word, i.e Satan.

Transliterated letters are not words.  They are symbolic of the original word.  We use this all the time in going back and forth between languages.

To be translated the letters s a t a n must result in a word that is equal to opponent.

When the letter s was made a capital letter it inferred in English that it was the name of a person, place or important thing.  Religion teaches that the word Satan is a spiritual being that desires to destroy humans.  Cannot answer the question, who/what created Satan?  Or at best says that God made Satan to teach us lessons.

Interestingly another word that means hurtful was INTERPRETED as meaning a masculine devil.   But  these words were used  in the Bible…bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked, wickedness.  Wonder why  masculine devil was not used? These are English chosen words they are not word meanings taken from the original text. (more…)