Newton's Cat

Paul, called to be an apostle, having been separated to the gospel of God (which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in writings holy), to all those being in Rome beloved of God, called to be holy: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Firstly I thank the God of me concerning all you, because the faith of you is being announced in all the world. For God is my witness, whom I serve in the spirit of me, how unceasingly mention of you I make always in the prayers of me, requesting if somehow now, at some time, I shall have a happy journey in the will of God to come to you.

The above was how the text originally read. Then someone cunningly altered it:

Paul, A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS, called to be an apostle, having been separated to the gospel of God (which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in writings holy, CONCERNING THE SON OF HIM, THE ONE COME OF THE SEED OF DAVID IN POWER ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS BY A RESURRECTION OF DEAD PERSONS, JESUS CHRIST THE LORD OF US, THROUGH WHOM WE RECEIVED GRACE AND APOSTLESHIP FOR OBEDIENCE OF FAITH AMONG ALL THE NATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE NAME OF HIM, AMONG WHOM ARE ALSO YOU CALLED TO BE OF JESUS CHRIST, to all those being in Rome beloved of God, called to be holy: Grace to you and peace from God the Father of us AND LORD JESUS CHRIST. Firstly I thank the God of me THROUGH JESUS CHRIST concerning all you, because the faith of you is being announced in all the world. For witness of me is God, whom I serve in the spirit of me IN THE GOSPEL OF THE SON OF HIM, how unceasingly mention of you I make always in the prayers of me, requesting if somehow now, at some time, I shall have a happy journey in the will of God to come to you.

Read the first "original" text through in a normal letter-reading voice - then read the second with the "Jesus" interpolations being read in a "religious fanatic" voice.

Someone altered the text, adding references to Jesus and Christianity - and carried on doing so THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ROMANS!

I've been studying this for 35 years - I know what I'm talking about.

Chris Weimer

Your name wouldn't happen to be Geoff Hudson, would it?

Newton's Cat

Note that Paul is claiming to have been "separated to the gospel of God" - and that his state of awareness was forecast by the prophets in their writings. It still has this sense even with the addition of "a servant of Christ Jesus". Paul is claiming to be someone real special in his own right.

Chris Weimer

You didn't answer the question though. Moreover, you've provided no textual evidence, no serious literary evidence except what conforms to your standard. This type of work doesn't hold up to serious scholarship.

Newton's Cat

It's for people to read through Romans and see what I mean. Proving it to those who can't "see" it is a very difficult task.

Some modern scholars claim that in Romans 1,16 the text originally read:

"both to Jew and to Greek" rather than "both to Jew FIRSTLY and to Greek"

I can prove that FIRSTLY was in the original.

Chris Weimer

Prove it then.

Newton's Cat

Ok.

After removing the references to Jesus in Romans 1,1-17 one is left with a text containing exactly 1000 letters (the Nestle Greek version).

The word God occurs 8 times. In each instance the first letter of the word God, or its definite article if it has one, is an EVEN number of letters from the beginning of the text. Also, in 7 out of the 8 instances the word God, or its definite article, is an ODD number of words from the beginning of the text. The "odd one out" is "o theos", the only instance of the use of the nominative. This is a pointer to a word in the text that defines the author's "concept of God".

The statistical odds against this arrangement occuring by chance are VERY high.

I have tried writing texts in English using this technique - its not too difficult to do. If someone were to alter my text I could prove it had been altered and to some extent identify the alterations.

Imagine if you were a author writing at a time when people could put out altered copies of your text. Let us say you wrote about the Emperor: "The Emperor is a wise man" - someone could alter it: "The Emperor thinks he is a wise man". To avoid this problem many authors (Ovid, Josephus, etc) used "secret techniques" of their own devising - which they could disclose when they needed to prove their texts had been altered. Important messages, military despatches, for instance, were often "protected" in this way so that if they were altered en route the fact could be discerned.

You can check it out yourself if you want - as long as you use the older Nestle version rather than the modern one which leaves out "firstly".

There is actually more "structure" in the text which I haven't quite got the hang of yet.

Watcher

I fail to see any point in any of this. Does anything the bible says even matter?

The fundamental logic behind the concept of it all is an argument against its own existence. Humanity arguing against language itself.

Chris Weimer

Why would you take out the name Jesus? And why only pick 1-17? Seems arbitrary to me.



Show me the stats. And show me why you arbitrarily selected the passages you did, and take out the name Jesus?

What evidence do you have that the authors used these techniques? Did they say they did?

mikem

Well, imagine that! Did you know that the name "Shakespear" appears in the Bible?

It's in Psalm 46. Count 46 words from the beginning, and you get to the word SHAKE. Now go to the end of the Psalm, and do the same thing counting 46 words backword from the last word, (omitting the Selah), and you get the word SPEAR. This of course only works with the King James Bible and of course this proves that Shakespeare has edited this Psalm .....doesn't it? After all, the odds against this happening BY CHANCE are so remote as to be uunbelievable!