Um cinegrafista acompanha o ponto final na saga do bruxo Harry Potter. Em um quarto de hotel, J.K. Rowling faz os últimos ajustes em "As Relíquias da Morte", 11 anos após o início da milionária série.

O programa, que estréia nesta quinta-feira, às 21h, no canal pago GNT, tenta aproximar criadora e criatura, seja com algumas coincidências --fazem aniversário no mesmo dia, 31 de julho--, seja com fatos reais da biografia dela, como uma infância difícil e a morte da mãe.

Até um quarto sob a escada ela tinha como no livro (mas não era obrigada a dormir lá). O especial tem dados interessantes, como o rompimento com o primeiro marido em Portugal, a relação com a irmã, Dianne, e as brigas com o pai.

São detalhes curiosos que não se vê normalmente no noticiário sobre ela e descortinam a vida da escritora mais bem paga do mundo, segundo a "Forbes". Embora não precise quanto dinheiro tem, ela admite ser "muitos milhões". E em libras.

O filme também discute religião --e ela vê na igreja que freqüentava um nome que "roubou" para "Harry Potter"--, privacidade e dinheiro.

Um alerta: ela destrincha o final do livro em detalhes. E promete que não haverá continuação da série -- embora depois de um silêncio pensativo.

A matéria foi encontrada aqui.

HARRY POTTER: UM ANO NA VIDA DE J.K. ROWLING
Etréia 09.10.2008, às 21h, no GNT
Classificação indicativa: não informada pelo canal

Caros amigos,
A peça Confissões das Mulheres de 30 que reestreou na última sexta no Teatro Folha e o seriado Mothern, que a gente faz no GNT estão indicados ao Prêmio Qualidade Brasil.
A peça está indicada em duas categorias: Melhor Espetáculo de Comédia e Melhor Direção para esta que vos escreve.
Poxa, votem na gente!
É só entrar aqui: http://www.premioqualidadebr.org.br/artecultura/?pg=votar

Importante: só pode votar até o dia 12 de Outubro, faltam três dias para a apuração.
Estamos indicadas com um monte de gente grande, somos tipo as zebrinhas da parada.
Se a gente ganhar vai ser muito legal.
Dá pra votar em teatro, TV e cinema. É só ver lá no site dos caras.

Um beijo enorme a todos,
Fernanda D´Umbra.

Isso mesmo, caros leitores: redução de 80% no salário fixo, divisão de publicidade –mas só depois de pagos os custos de produção e salários–, e um programa semanal. Essa é a proposta que o SBT fez a Adriane Galisteu, 35, para a renovação de seu contrato, que venceu há dez dias. Pessoas a par das negociações, consultadas por Ooops! ontem e hoje, afirmam que a proposta pode ser considerada “humilhante”.

Dos R$ 500 mil mensais que ela recebia no contrato anterior, o SBT oferece agora R$ 100 mil (e mais dois anos de contrato). Galisteu só receberia mais do que isso se seu programa atrair anunciantes e merchandising. Nesse caso, o SBT ficaria com 50% e Galisteu com outros 50%.

Só que, antes da divisão dos lucros, o SBT teria direito de descontar todos os gastos da produção –da energia elétrica à produção; do custo de transporte de eventuais platéias a gastos com convidados. Enfim, todo o custo de produção.

Esse modelo contratual já vem sendo usado há anos entre o SBT e Gugu Liberato, com extrema lucratividade para apresentador e emissora. Mas há uma diferença imensa entre públicos (e de anunciantes) de Gugu e Galisteu.

Passou essa madrugada no Late Show with David Letterman (GNT, 1h), um dos talkshows mais famosos e assistidos nos EUA, o programa que foi ao ar semana passada lá fora, em que o entrevistado seria John McCain. Seria. 

O candidato republicano à presidência, que já apareceu por lá em diversas oportunidades, cancelou sua participação horas antes da gravação. Nem mesmo a vice, a bombardeada Sarah Palin, a governadora do Alaska, vice de McCain, participou.

Mas o grande “xiii” da questão (há) é que McCain disse que não poderia participar do programa porque estava indo para Washington, ajudar o país com a crise financeira atual. Entretanto, ele foi ao CBS Evening News, programa jornalístico da emissora CBS (a mesma de Letterman). Tanto que durante a gravação do Late Show eles descobriram onde estava McCain e colocaram imagens da participação do candidato no outro programa. 

No programa, Letterman falou que admirava McCain, por ter ido a Guerra do Vietnã e tal, mas não deixou de criticar a atitude do presidenciável, (inclusive no tradicional Top 10). Para o azar de McCain, o convidado suplente foi Keith Olbermann, um apresentador da MSNBC, crítico dos republicanos, que não perdeu a deixa. Dias antes, Barack Obama foi o entrevistado e aproveitou para fazer campanha.

Veja os principais pontos do programa:

Como não achei nenhuma imagem sobre o programa exibido ontem pela GNT (e com reprises programadas para os dias 04/10 às 19:30h e 06/10 às 13:30h), estou usando as fotos das minhas duas gatinhas para ilustrar o post (o negócio é improvisar de vez em quando).

Dei sorte ontem ao zapear pela tv a cabo e parar na GNT. O programa Pet.Doc (uma série de programas inspirados no livro Nós e Nossos Cães e do qual eu falei aqui antes) mostra a relação interessante dos bichinhos e seus proprietários, buscando, por vezes, a opinião de especialistas para falar sobre comportamento, necessidades e as melhores maneiras de você cuidar dele e, ontem, o assunto do programa foram os GATOS.

O programa é curtinho, só meia hora, e passou super rápido, mas foi legal ver o pessoal falando de sua relação com este bicho por muitas vezes estigmatizado.

Eu sei bem o que é isso, afinal, tendo sido criada com vários cachorros, sempre dois ou três ao mesmo tempo, tenho fotos de infância com os cachorros em minha cama, as de bebê com eles em meu berço,  sempre olhei os gatos com desconfiança, acreditando na tal história de que gato é um bicho traiçoeiro e que não é carinhoso.

Vida de casada, apartamento pequeno, o dia todo fora de casa, me impediam de ter um cachorro (ficava imaginando o bichinho num espaço pequeno, preso o dia todo) e eu sentia falta de um bicho para mudar as energias da casa. Maridão me deu a opção de ter um gato e eu neguei.

Até ver a Malagueta, gata persa chique e de pet shop, em uma vitrine do Shopping Eldorado. Foi amor a primeira vista e liguei correndo pro maridão falando: se quer um gato, vai ter de ser esse.

Sábado seguinte fui buscá-la no pet shop e levei para casa após ser orientada sobre suas necessidades (a tal caixa de areia e comida especial) e manias. Aprendi a amar esse bicho tão independente e decidido. Sempre lembrava da minha psicanalista, no começo da minha terapia há uns dez anos atrás, me falando que apenas inseguros têm amor pelos cachorros.

Nem tão ao céu, nem tão a terra. Os cachorros são bichos ótimos, mas eternamente dependentes de ti. São crianças perpétuas. E crianças carentes de atenção e cuidado. Não ache que um cachorro irá se virar para ter o que quer, ele vai esperar com cara triste que você faça.

Gatos não. Se você for mal-educado ou judiar de um gato ele não vai abanar o rabo no instante seguinte já esquecendo de tudo (na realidade até vai, já que, ao contrário do cachorro, o gato balança o rabo quando não gosta de algo), ele vai te ignorar e destratar até que tenha te perdoado. Pode até te surpreender com algum presente nada agradável no teu lugar preferido da casa (quando eu voltei a trabalhar depois de ficar um ano em casa com a Carol, a Malagueta começou a fazer côco na minha cama para demonstrar que não gostou da mudança).

Gatos te procuram para brincar, mas se você não quiser eles brincarão sozinhos. Gatos buscam carinho, se você não der eles também não vão te dar, não vão buscar teu colo, podem até fingir que não gostam mais de você, para que você saiba que eles ficaram tristes.

Gatos são espertos e curiosos, fuçam pela casa, entram em armários e fazem brinquedo de caixas e sacolas. gatos usam a caixa de areia por instinto e não saem sujando a casa, pelo contrário, brigam caso você não limpe a caixa de areia deles direito.

Gatos comem apenas para se satisfazer. Você pode deixar a comida de dias para eles e eles não vão se entupir de comida, desesperados até que a comida acabe. Eles não se desesperam.

Nossa segunda gata, uma vira-siamesa branca, nos trouxe uma nova experiência na convivência com os bichanos. Ela é brincalhona ao extremo, adora um colo e adora gente nova. Quando temos visita, a Malagueta some para o quarto de maneira a não ser incomodada (uma lady), já a Muzzarella quer ver quem vai fazer mais carinho nela ou lhe dar alguma porcaria para comer.

Outra diferença entre as duas é essa: como foi criada em gatil, a Malagueta só considera comida aquilo que está no pote dela. Já a Muzzarella, gata de rua, sabe que aquilo que a gente come também pode lhe servir e só falta subir em cima do seu prato para ver se lhe apetece.

No caso da Malagueta, nem adianta colocar qualquer coisa na tigela dela. Só se for Royal Canin. Uma vez viajamos e resolvemos levá-la junto, pois esquecemos a comida e não achamos por lá a marca que sempre compramos. Compramos outra, cara também, e a bichinha virou a cara e só foi comer quando encontramos a que ela gostal. É, gatos têm personalidade forte.

Nas viagens curtas, dois a cinco dias, as duas ficam em casa super bem. Deixamos água e comida em comedouros especiais e duas caixinhas de areia. Não zoneam a casa, nem destroem nada. Tudo fica bem e elas também. Se a viagem é mais longa elas nos viram a cara por uns dias, mas nada de muito sério.

Hoje digo, sem sombra de dúvida, sou uma CAT PERSON. Os gatos se espalhem por bolsas, pingentes, camisetas e saias. Ainda estou em busca de um gatinho preto de patas brancas, o chamado White Socks, para completar a família. Quem sabe ele fica gorducho como eu queria.

A Carol, de vez em quando, pede um cachorro. Porque, por mais que gostem de um colo, gatos gostam de decidir o que querem fazer, e crianças querem que os bichos façam o que eles querem. Eu fico dividida. Não só pela pena do bicho cão em casa, mas pelo trabalho que isso significará: ele vai ter de ir junto em qualquer viagem, sair duas vezes por dia, com chuva ou sol, para levatr o cachorro para passear, ter alguém para dar almoço pro cão, já que não posso largar a comida para ele... Ufi... Vou ver se ela aceita outro gato, uma iguana, uma tartaruga... Sei lá... algo assim, risos.

Acho que os gatos também fazem bem às crianças porque lhe ensinam a ter limites, eles não aceitam imposição de vontades. Mas são carinhosos e atentos. Quando a Carol chegou em casa a Malagueta lhe vigiava dia a noite no berço. Quando ela chorava ela ia me buscar onde eu estivesse da casa.

Quando ficam felizes e querem nos agradar deixam presentes. Como não podem exercitar seu lado caçador desbravando matas e nos trazendo algum animalzinho, as duas deixam em minha cama seus brinquedos preferidos. Acho sensacional, porque não é que elas largam lá, elas escolhem o local, que normalmente é meu travesseiro, e colocam lá o presentinho.

Num programa do Discovery, uma vez, vi que os gatos olham para você como se fossemos gatos também, eles nos adotam como família. Eu achei isso sensacional.

Bom, e eu ia falar do programa né? Pois bem, ele mostrou a Verônica Sabino, outra que não gostava de gatos, contando sobre ter achado sua primeira gata em um lixo e hoje ser a dona feliz de duas gatas. Ela conta como os bichinhos lhe conquistaram.

Teve o Antonio Calony contando sobre sua paixão pelos gatos, lendo uma de suas poesias e falando da experiência feliz de ter dublado Garfield, sujo autor, com certeza, conhecia muito bem o bicho que retratou. O músico Marcus Leite (espero não estar errando o nome) que disse não ter certeza se ele tem uma gata ou se uma gata tem a ele.

Termino com uma frase repetida a exaustão pelo maridão: Para seu cachorro você é seu mundo. Para o gato, o mundo é dele, mas ele te deixa brincar um pouquinho.

As outras partes aqui.

Jane Elliott é uma senhora que ganhou mais um admorador. Existem poucas pessoas como ela no mundo. Valeu Felipe Dias por ter me apresentado.

http://www.janeelliott.com/

Boreli

Eu não assisto a TV aberta, devo confessar. Não agüento os programas chatos e inúteis com celebridades jogando e contando coisas de suas vidas chatas e glamorosas. Tão pouco agüentaria os programas do domingo a tarde. Faustão, é de matar de sacal! Gugu? Nossa até o nome é brega. E tem horas que é tão brega que eu fico com vergonha por ele. Não sei nem quais são os quadros que passam nesses programas hoje em dia, mas na minha época de TV aberta lembro-me da banheira do Gugu e do arquivo confidencial, ambos uma perda de tempo e incrivelmente inúteis.

Em 1998 tive a brilhante idéia de adquirir a SKY e foi, sem dúvida alguma, um dos melhores investimentos que fiz na minha vida. De lá pra cá, não assisti mais a TV aberta, salvo por raríssimas ocasiões, como o Pânico na TV. Ter acesso a canais como Globonews, GNT, Sportv, Multishowm BBC, Foxnews e etc é um privilégio. Agora não tenho que ouvir a voz chata do Galvão-Sabe-tudo Bueno e nem a voz irritante do Fasutão com aquele cocktel de besteirol aos Domingos. Fantástico? Bem… o Fantástico deu uma caída absurda de qualidade. Certo dia até tentei assistir, mas quando entrou um quadro no qual deram dinheiro para algumas crianças para saber em que elas gastariam, me dei conta de que a decadência era real e muito maior do que eu imaginava, então, não obrigado! Prefiro o excelente Jornal da Dez da Globonews. Futebol com o Galvão Bueno? De jeito nenhum! O Sportv tem melhor imagem e melhores comentários. Filmes na Globo são o fim da picada. Os filmes são dublados ,(o que para mim perde a graça), e com comerciais intermináveis durante todo o filme. Reality shows… bom, não tenho nada contra o BBB, é uma febre. Assisti somente ao primeiro e ao segundo, e de lá pra cá assisti muito pouco. Esse último não vi nada, nada mesmo. Só, peguei algumas cenas das mulheres na Internet. Mas já dá para perceber que aqui, apesar do clima, da pouca roupa e de toda sensualidade inata do nosso povo, ainda há um falso moralismo grande. Os Big Brothers da Europa são bem mais polêmicos em todos os sentidos, então se for para assistir, prefiro os de lá.

Hoje não me vejo sem TV por assinatura, não dá para voltar para a TV aberta com tanta porcaria por aí. Não que não existam canais com programas ruins, mas existe muito mais coisas boas, interessantes e informativas do que na TV aberta. A SKY foi minha salvação.

]]> http://virginiadferrante.wordpress.com/?p=186 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:42:32 +0000 virginiadferrante http://virginiadferrante.pt.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/palavras-ao-veeento/ Estou em Curitiba e sem muita coisa para falar!

* Então a Kylie Minogue vem pro Brasil, mas é fato que todo o bafafa em cima dos 3 shows da Madonna abafaram a segunda loira.A cantora vem ao brasil tocar em SP no dia 8 de setembro (mesmo dia do festinal Planeta Terra). Os ingressos já estão à venda ,mas parece que é só para alguns cartões de crédito.O preço esta entre R$80 e R$300.  Gosto da Kylie,mas éfato que as pessoas investiram dinheram no ingresso da diva do pop, e não sei se gastaram mais para ver a outra bonita aí, ainda mais sendo no mesmo dia de outro festivel...hm hm hm.. Bem, deixo aí um clip dela que gosto muito,a música é incriiiivel! Slow!

E é isso.

Hoje quero assistir a entrevista do Barack Obama no David Letterman (22h no GNT). E House depois.

Lately I've been enjoying reading the Good News Translation of the Bible. I appreciate how they translate the Scriptures into Plain English — the kinds of words and sentences we use every day. This has not only helped me enjoy reading the Bible, it's helped me read more of the Bible, follow the writer's train of thought better and see things that I knew were there, but the meaning hadn't really hit me before.

But the GNT isn't always as "vernacular" as I'd like. Sometimes there are places where they use vocabulary that we just don't use regularly. In other places, it seems like it flows too easily. The sentences are constructed so "easily readable" that it's too easy to blaze by all the content instead of speeding up and slowing down as the writer's train moves from station to station.

Writing The Millennial Translation

And so I decided to try my hand at writing a thought-for-thought translation. By no means do I think I'm the best person for the job, but I don't know of any other effort underway and, even if it doesn't turn out very well, it'll be a good exercise.

The first step is to really get a handle on what the author is trying to say — the original intent — as well as the way in which the author's trying to say it. Where is the author's emphasis in the sentence and paragraph? What exactly are the connections between thoughts? As you probably know, I'm no Greek scholar. But perhaps this is a benefit. Instead of trusting my own ability with the Greek, I can stand on the shoulders of the top authors in the field. I can lean on Rosscup's Commentaries for Biblical Expositors to find the top detailed exegetical commentaries on the book at hand, as well as on A.T. Robertson's Word Studies (he's regarded by many as the leading authority on New Testament Greek grammar).

So I began with this passage I'm teaching, the conclusion of Peter's Second Letter, with the help of the resources mentioned above (specifically D. Edmond Hiebert's exegetical commentary, #5 on Rosscup's list — thanks, Timber!). Let me know what you think! (I'll discuss some of the particular choices and some of the questions I had in a follow-up post).

2 Peter 3:14-18

Because of all this, dear loved ones, since you can't wait for all these things, throw yourselves into being pure and without a trace of sin when you stand before Him - and at peace. See our Master's patience as an opportunity for more people to be saved, just like our dear brother Paul, in line with the wisdom given him, wrote you.

He writes with the same wisdom in all his letters when he writes about these things, some of which are tough to understand. The untrained and unstable twist these, just like the rest of the Scriptures, to their own ruin.

You then, loved ones - knowing this in advance - constantly guard yourselves for fear that, being swept away with the deceptive influence of deviants, you fall from your own stability. Instead, keep growing in grace and in the understanding of our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ. May all worship go to Him, both now and until eternity's day. Amen.

More claims:

If verses were added to the original by mistake, then whoever added them must have also made them verses (numbered them) for them to be verses. This would suggest the same person must have also numbered all the other verses of the bible too. What I soon discovered though, was that the person who allegedly added the verses was not the same person who numbered them into verses afterwards. So there must have been a conspiracy, and not a mistake...Additions can’t have been made to the King James Bible … These verses were removed after they were made verses in the year 1551 AD …

I think the verse numbering system is supposed to their 'smoking gun'. The verse numbering system we mostly use today for English New Testaments appeared in the Geneva Bible. It was published by Estienne, a French publisher who was affectionate towards the teachings of John Calvin.

It's claimed that, "verses were removed after they were made verses in the year 1551". I think we should be looking to historical and archeological sources rather than relying on one of the many chapter and verse systems created very late in Europe.

462 - Euthalius of Alexandria, created a division system in Acts and the Epistles

1248 - Cardinal Hugo de Santo Care, created a chapter system

1500s - Italian scholar Santi Pagnini created a verse numbering system

1508 - Rabbi Nathan, created a verse system for the Hebew Bible

1551 - Estienne creates an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament.

1557 - Geneva Bible' New Testament published with chapter and verse division

1560 - Complete Geneva Bible published, view it here

1611 - Original King James Version w/Apocrypha, view it here

Another claim:

Publishers of modern bibles say that Erasmus created the greek manuscript of the King James Bible, and he corrupted it before he died in 1536. He was the only possible candidate. They say that the “extra” verses in the King James were added by Erasmus to make the King James Bible.

It stated that "Publishers of modern bibles say that Erasmus created the greek manuscript". It's really historians that say and and Erasmus' own name on his work.

I don't know of anyone who claims that the Roman Catholic Scholar Erasmus corrupted his own text, the Textus Receptus. The only claims I've read about this are from King James adherents making this claim that "Publishers of modern bibles say...".

Can someone tell me which modern Bible publisher has claimed that the author is claiming?

Another claim:

Stephens is criticised by opponents that his verse divisions do not make sense, that they are almost randomly done without logic. Thus Stephens randomly selects verse divisions which co-incidentally match Erasmus’ additions fifteen years earlier. … Stephens does this on horseback

Our current chapter and verse system has been criticized, but all the chapter and verse division is really for is easily finding our way in and around thousands of words.

Another claim:

I got it!
What really convinced me:

1.    14 out of 16 verses are whole verses
2.    Stephens defines them in 1551 as whole verses
3.    There is a much greater chance that he would have ‘missed’ the bits Erasmus (or any other monk) added
4.    But he did not miss the bits. So you have to include Stephens in on making the ‘additions’
5.    This means he would have to be present every time a verse was added.
6.    This implies a conspiracy (not a mistake by Roman Catholic Monks)
7.    Or there was no conspiracy at all. This means that the verses were subtracted after they became verses (after 1551).
8.    Verses can only be missing if they are verses in the first place!
To repeat what the New American Standard Bible says 14 times:
“Early mss do not contain this VERSE“

In trying to bring this into reality, verses have never been deleted in newer English translations of the Bible or the Alexandrian texts. Bibles from the post medieval period in Europe contain additions have been added through years of copying, mostly it's accidental and the actual text amount added is very small.

Another claim:

Rooted in the Saturn worship of pagan Rome, every non-King James modern Bible, including the New King James bears this indelible mark. Sometimes called ‘Leningrad’. It is“The Sign of The End”

I've never seen this "indelible mark" in the New King James version or any Christian Bible. Have you?

Conclusion:

The author claimed, “I have discoverd the proof of the forgeries”. Their proof was the chapter and verse divisions later added and scriptural differences in older and newer English translations. The proofs were based on ignorance of textual criticism and an improper education about the history of the English Bible.

The REAL reason for the Alexandrian text (from Egypt) falling out of use is because access to it was mostly cut-off. Access to older copies of many Christian texts was cut-off until someone rediscovered them. I'm not going to tell you what cut them off. I'm going to let you figure it out for yourself. In a prior post here, I linked to a flash map that will give you that reason.

References

New Advent - Hebrew Bible

The Verse Divisions in the Holy Sscriptures

Maps of War

White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995 (Book)

O canal GNT vêm produzindo diversos projetos gráficos interessantes. Segue hoje a abertura do programa Madame Lee, exibido em 2005 e apresentado pela cantora Rita Lee e seu marido Roberto de Carvalho. O vídeo apresenta uma síntese dos grafismos mais usados ultimamente como: o aspecto bidimensional, cores vibrantes e chapadas e formas florais e de fluidos. Esses elementos sempre procuram exaltar modernidade, juventude e descontração, se encaixando perfeitamente a personalidade da artista e ao clima do extinto programa, que trazia personalidades ao um maluca consulta "no divã".

Postado por André Luiz Sens

I would like to know what you think of an article I read on modern bibles. http://alumbrados.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/the-proof-of-forgery-of-modern-bibles-2/

Could it be true?

This article about modern Bibles is more or less a bunch of unsubstantiated claims by a Textus Recepticus/King James Version cultist. I won't examine every claim in the article. After examining a small cross section of the claims you will see why.

1st claim:

Why can’t people think? I am surprised that I have discoverd the proof of the forgeries [Alexandrian manuscripts] and yet hundreds, thousands of churches, dare I say MILLIONS of churches and members and their and pastors have not. Whats behind this blindness? Whats behind this apathy? Spiritual ‘demons’ or just plain instructions from above not to meddle? I believe it is the latter—

The writer of the article is unnamed. The author claims to have discovered proof of Bible forgery that is being ignored by hundreds, thousands, millions of churches and members. What is the cause of this supposed ignorance? In their words, “instructions from above not to meddle”, whatever that means.

Another claim:

THE VERDICT
The King James Bible otherwise known as the Authorised Version is the only true version of the bible. Translators of other bibles use forged Egyptian manuscripts.

Throughout the article, no certain or established evidence is given to the reader to back up their claims about "forged Egyptian manuscripts".

Another claim:

The true manuscript is the King James ‘Textus Receptus’ manuscript. The King James is the only bible that survived on its own for 300 years. It is also called the Received Text. If a bible is not in English, then translators must still use the Received Text manuscript. But not the forged Egyptian manuscript of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort worked solely from forged documents in 1881, called ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’. They replaced the Received Text.

The article, before it’s even off the starting line, stumbles. It stated the “King James is the only bible that survived on its own for 300 years”. This statement is untrue. A Bible cannot survive on its own because it needs to be printed by human beings.

The Protestant Geneva Bible was printed in 1560. It’s been around a lot longer than the King James Bible. The Geneva Bible is still printed today. The King James Bible that's sold today isn’t even the original 1611 edition.

Why isn' the Geneva Bible considered to be the "only true version of the bible".  No evidence is given concerning the so-called forged Egyptian manuscripts of newer translations. No evidence is given for Westcott and Hort forging them either.

Consider John 3:16 in the Geneva, 1611 King James and the King James version used today,

Geneva Bible of 1560

For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

King James Bible of 1611

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

King James Bible printed today

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another claim:

‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’ forged

Concerning the evidence given about the ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’ manuscripts being forged, which was nothing, religionfacts.com states,

...a paleographer analyzes the handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon dating would...

An article on religionfacts.com can give you sourced and substantiated information about the earliest manuscript we have in our possession today, instead of wild claims.

Further claims:

“The true manuscript is the King James ‘Textus Receptus’ manuscript...If a bible is not in English, then translators must still use the Received Text manuscript.”

The Erasmus' Greek NT was the base for the Luther New Testament, Tyndale's NT, and the Geneva Bible's NT. A later edition of Erasmus' Greek NT was used during the creation of the King James version. The author of the article claims "translators must still use the Received Text", which some of the Bible's I previously mentioned did. However the author claims "The King James Bible...is the only true version of the bible." The author of the article has completely contradicted himself.

The article goes on to state that all other Bibles have use “forged documents”. Their proof to this is the differences between the King James and newer English translations. There are a number of problems with statements like this and it reveals a lot of ignorance the author on this subject.

The ‘Textus Receptus’ is a 15th century Greek NT created from many manuscript written in Greek and parts taken from Latin copies by the Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. In order for the claim “true manuscript”, God would have to re-inspire this. The ‘Textus Receptus’ is not a manuscript as such. It’s somewhat a consolidation of information from many manuscripts.

Another claim:

These forged documents [Alexandrian manuscripts] were made to create confusion and raised doubts about what God says in the true Received Text.

Parts of the Alexandrian manuscripts go all the way back to 125 A.D./C.E. So it wasn't until 1500 A.D./C.E., thirteen thousands years later that God's word just reappears in the 'Textus Recepticus/Received Text'?

Another claim:

Today, translators use these forged documents [Alexandrian manuscripts] to produce the commonly accepted modern bibles. The same sixteen verses are removed from the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Translation and many others. The sixteen WHOLE missing verses is the clear mark of the forgeries. Modern translators also copy or remove other bits and pieces as they think fit, from the King James bible.

The New International Version hasn't deleted anything. It's the King James Bible that is faulty here, not the New International Version. The author of the article here has his logic backwards.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are older than what Desiderius Erasmus based his Greek NT on. The strange logic the author displays is that the Alexandrian manuscripts have deletions, on purpose. Desiderius Erasmus Greek NT is been based on manuscripts that have had text that was added over time; text that was not originally written its authors.

Another claim:

The United Bible Societies (UBS) was established in 1946 to improve cooperation between the various societies. The main ones were The American Bible Society formed in 1816 and The British and Foreign Bible Society formed in 1804. UBS now has a global alliance of at least 130 Bible Societies. This alliance includes most national bible societies around the world. UBS has distributed in over 2200 languages an estimated 7 billion modern bibles. But the UBS text (NU-Text) is almost identical to the forged Westcott and Hort text of 1881. UBS replaced the Received Text after 1881.

Again, wild and baseless accusations by the articles author that are not supplied with one single fact.

More claims:

WHY WE USE THE KING JAMES BIBLE … Modern Bibles Have Removed the following 16 verses - CHECK IT UP - Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, *John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, *1 John 5:7 …

I'm not going to check all these verses, because the author of this article makes error after error after error.

• Author states, "Modern Bibles Have Removed Matthew 17:21". Matthew 17:21 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Mark 9:29.^*
• Matthew 18:11 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Luke 19:10.^*
• Matthew 23:14 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Mark 12:40.^*
• Mark 7:16 in the King James Bible doesn't exist in in newer translations or older manuscripts these newer translations are derived from. Mark 7:16 is maybe abridged from Mark 4:9 and 23 in later manuscripts.^*
• Mark 9:44 in the King James Bible was a duplicate copy due to copyist error.^*

I'm not going to mess with the rest of the verses. The author of the article hasn't checked anything out and that should be clear by looking at the information he presents.

^{* White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995, P. 155}

To be continued...

Clique aqui para ver mais fotos.

THE VERDICT

The King James Bible otherwise known as the Authorised Version is the only true version of the bible. Translators of other bibles use forged Egyptian manuscripts.

The true manuscript is the King James ‘Textus Receptus’ manuscript. The King James is the only bible that survived on its own for 300 years. It is also called the Received Text. If a bible is not in English, then translators must still use the Received Text manuscript. But not the forged Egyptian manuscript of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort worked solely from forged documents in 1881, called ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’. They replaced the Received Text.

These forged documents were made to create confusion and raised doubts about what God says in the true Received Text.

Today, translators use these forged documents to produce the commonly accepted modern bibles. The same sixteen verses are removed from the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Translation and many others. The sixteen WHOLE missing verses is the clear mark of the forgeries. Modern translators also copy or remove other bits and pieces as they think fit, from the King James bible.

The United Bible Societies (UBS) was established in 1946 to improve cooperation between the various societies. The main ones were The American Bible Society formed in 1816 and The British and Foreign Bible Society formed in 1804. UBS now has a global alliance of at least 130 Bible Societies. This alliance includes most national bible societies around the world. UBS has distributed in over 2200 languages an estimated 7 billion modern bibles. But the UBS text (NU-Text) is almost identical to the forged Westcott and Hort text of 1881. UBS replaced the Received Text after 1881.

The penny dropped…

As my research into Bible translations went on, I discovered that there was a major flaw in what modern bible translators had done. They had said that bible verses had been added to the original BY MISTAKE, while King James supporters said the same verses had in fact been removed from the original BY CONSPIRACY. To decided which group was correct, I had to stand back and think:

If verses were added to the original by mistake, then whoever added them must have also made them verses (numbered them) for them to be verses. This would suggest the same person must have also numbered all the other verses of the bible too. What I soon discovered though, was that the person who allegedly added the verses was not the same person who numbered them into verses afterwards. So there must have been a conspiracy, and not a mistake. Thus I came to the conclusion that the first group of people were wrong who said that verses had been added to the original BY MISTAKE. I logically concluded that this could only have been done BY CONSPIRACY. This cancelled the testimony of the first group of people who said that verses had been added to the original BY MISTAKE. I further concluded that the verses had to have been removed from the original after the verses were made (numbered) in 1551. So a great forgery had taken place not in Alexandria in the 4th century, but in the Vatican in modern times.

Additions can’t have been made to the King James Bible … These verses were removed after they were made verses in the year 1551 AD …

Publishers of modern bibles say that Erasmus created the greek manuscript of the King James Bible, and he corrupted it before he died in 1536. He was the only possible candidate. They say that the “extra” verses in the King James were added by Erasmus to make the King James Bible. … But Everyone will agree Erasmus does not create the verse divisions of the bible, even though his additions are conveniently whole verses. … Fifteen years after Erasmus’ death, Stephens picks up Erasmus’ manuscript and creates the verse divisions in 1551. Co-incidentally, he labels Erasmus’ additions as whole verses. … 400 years later, the New American Standard Bible confirms the blunder of modern bible publishers, that Erasmus added WHOLE verses - before they were made verses. Verses are numbered in sequence so they could not have been added after. … Stephens is criticised by opponents that his verse divisions do not make sense, that they are almost randomly done without logic. Thus Stephens randomly selects verse divisions which co-incidentally match Erasmus’ additions fifteen years earlier. … Stephens does this on horseback… COPY THIS PAGE AND PASS IT ON.

The same verses are removed in every modern bible because every modern bible relies on the same modern greek source … This modern greek source is not the original bible. The only bible which uses the original greek source is the King James Bible, which has all the 16 verses. … This is very serious because it means the original greek source has been intentionally altered after 1551. Who knows what else has been altered in the modern bible? … The modern bible has seriously altered Matthew 16:20. It removes the name of Jesus from this verse. It should read ‘Jesus the Christ’ … Other serious verses have been altered where the name of Jesus is intentionally removed. They are - Matthew 8:29, Acts 3:26, Acts 9:29, Acts 19:10, Romans 15:8, Romans 16:18, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:18, Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:14, Colossians 1:2, Colossians 1:28, 2 Timothy 4:22, Philemon 1:6, 1 Peter 5:10, 1 Peter 5:14 … We should only use the original bible, and not a bible which has been intentionally altered. We could bring a serious judgment on ourselves if we use a false bible. …

The verse divisions of the New Testament were made by Robert Estienne (better known to us as Stephens) in 1551: “The Stephanic verses have met with bitter criticism because of the fact that they break the text into fragments, the division often coming in the middle of the sentence, instead of forming it into convenient and logical paragraphs,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908-1912), volume 2, pages 113-14.

Get Erasmus

According to the above extract, bible verses are illogically defined. Suppose the 16 WHOLE VERSES I have mentioned were added by Erasmus, or by anyone else. Robert Stephens would need to know about it beforehand. Because Stephens carefully defines the additions as WHOLE VERSES in 1551. He must have known about the bits Erasmus added. Did he know Erasmus? Erasmus died in 1536.

THE CONSPIRACY:

1. Erasmus adds bits of sentence to the original manuscript
   (16 bits and pieces, here and there) 
2. Erasmus tells Stephens where these bits and pieces begin and end within the giant Erasmus manuscript 
3. Erasmus convinces Stephens. Stephens agrees to do it 
4. Stephens defines Erasmus 16 additions individually as WHOLE VERSES. He then creates the giant manuscript with verse divisions 
5. Stephens then publishes it. 
6. Obviously the conspiracy is not done in person, because Erasmus is dead at the time.

The only other possibility is that these 16 verses were subtracted after 1551.

This means that some time after 1551, some person or persons deleted the WHOLE VERSES (what a blunder).

I got it!

What really convinced me:

  
1. 14 out of 16 verses are whole verses 
2. Stephens defines them in 1551 as whole verses 
3. There is a much greater chance that he would have ‘missed’ the bits Erasmus (or any other monk) added 
4. But he did not miss the bits. So you have to include Stephens in on making the ‘additions’ 
5. This means he would have to be present every time a verse was added. 
6. This implies a conspiracy (not a mistake by Roman Catholic Monks) 
7. Or there was no conspiracy at all. This means that the verses were subtracted after they became verses (after 1551). 
8. Verses can only be missing if they are verses in the first place!

To repeat what the New American Standard Bible says 14 times:

“Early mss do not contain this VERSE“

The Beastly (RC) Emblem of the Phantom Bible
Rooted in the Saturn worship of pagan Rome, every non-King James modern Bible, including the New King James bears this indelible mark. Sometimes called ‘Leningrad’. It is“The Sign of The End”

Amanhã, no programa Saia Justa do GNT, o assunto será sobre sapatólatras. A ex-psicóloga e hoje designer Sarah Chofakian nos conta o que as mulheres procuram quando saem para comprar sapatos, valores agregados, os modelos de maior sucesso e como é o processo de criação.

quarta - dia 06 às 22h30

reprise: quinta - dia 07 às 04h00, 10h00 e 14h00 / sábado - dia 09 às 23h00 ]]>