Jacob Changed To James By Catholics

CherubRam

Judaic Christian
Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2023
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
89
Jacob Changed To James By Catholics

In the days of King James II the European bible was in Latin, and only the priest were allowed to have a bible.

The Vatican is of the belief that they have the right to change the wording of scriptures.
It was against Vatican law in those days for the public to be in possession of bible scriptures, or historical writings.

Since the name James is not in the most ancient of bible text, although it is given as a interpretation; that would mean that it was the Vatican who made the change during the days of King James II, AKA James the Just.

The use of James occurs in the Wyclifite version written around 1382.

Luther’s German Bible only has Jakob throughout it.
The Luther Bible is a German Bible translation by Martin Luther, first printed with both testaments in 1534.

Because Luther's German bible does not have the name James in it, but the Wyclifte bible does, that means that just prior to the printing of the Wyclifite version, the Latin bible was changed.


James or Jacob

The “James” or “Jacob” question.
The name “James” seems to have been around from the time of Tyndale and Wycliffe. In the New and Old Testament: German “Jakob” OT, and “Jakobus” NT; the Vulgate, “Iacob” OT, “Iacobus” NT. The French Bible Jerusalem identifies the OT figure as “Jacob,” while the NT figure is “Jacques.” And of course, the New Testament and the Septuagint apply the name Ιακωβ to the patriarch, but Ιακωβος (the declinable form) to all the companions of Jesus [Yahshua] who go by this name.

The “Christian name” James or the “Jewish name” Jacob.

It is said that the name James is derived from the same Hebrew name as Jacob. James, meaning: He who "supplants." Jacob: He who "grasp heel."

The name James came into English language from the French variation of the late Latin name, Iacomus; a dialect variant of Iacobus, from the New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos), a variant form from Hebrew name יעקב (Yaʻaqov) Jacob.

The modern name James did not exist during the days of Yahshua.

King James, the Just?

In regards to speaking about King James II of Aragon being called "James the Just."

Link: James II of Aragon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_Aragon

The name James entered the scriptures in place of Jacob about the time of King James II.
The 1611 KJV and that King James only continued to use James in place of Jacob.
King James II (10 August 1267 – 2 November or 5 November 1327).
King James is also called King James the Just. Aragonese: Chaime lo Chusto, Catalan: Jaume el Just, Spanish: Jaime el Justo.

Saint Jacob. ( In Hebrew: יעקב) Jacob , (died AD 62).
Saint James the Just.

He was known as Jacob the Just in 350 AD in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas 12
Quote: The Disciples said to Jesus, "We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you come it is to [James / Jacob] the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist."

The Gospel of Thomas is dated at around 340 AD. The First Apocalypse of James is also called the Revelation of Jacob, because the original text has the name Jacob, but is given the interpretation James. The actual name used is Jacob, but translators keep giving the name Jacob the interpretation "James."



The name James entered scriptures about the same time as King James was being called James the Just, which also was said of Jacob in the Gnostic writings. Translators for whatever the reason keep giving Jacob the name James, even though it does not appear in the most ancient text. It would be logical to conclude that the reason was to honor King James II, by adding his name to scriptures. You would think that the translators would have more respect for the bible then that. The Hellenist and Kabbalist were also involved in corrupting scriptures, usually in matters of the Messiah Yahshua.

In order for the name James to appear in the Strong's and NIV Exhaustive concordances, they would have to be basing the scriptures upon late translations, and not the earliest of text.
Every mention of the Patriarch Jacob, for example, is translated as Jacob, not James – yet it’s the same Greek word. And more significantly, according to Matthew 1.16, Joseph’s father – Jesus’ adoptive grandfather – was called Iakob. And in English Bibles you will find that he is called Jacob, not James.

Here’s the NRSV:
‘Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born’ (Matt 1.16)

Yet, when the same name – Jacob – is used for Jesus’ brother in Matthew 13.55, it’s translated as James:
‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?’ (Matt 13.55)

Let’s be quite clear: it’s the same word – Iakob. And yet it’s translated two different ways. Joseph clearly named his son in honour of his own father. And yet in every English translation, the translators call one Jacob, and the other James.

The name James wasn’t even invented until about the twelvth century – it’s an English version of the Spanish name Jaime.

Here is the word Jacob: ϊακωβ [Iakob]. It is not the word Iakobos which is translated as James. We are talking about Matthew 4:21. The word is [Iakob] there, and not Iakobos which is translated as James.

Note: Did you know that Judah appears in the NT over 40 times, yet is only translated once in the KJV correctly as Judah? So it's not about the Greek name it's about a selective translation.

In my opinion it is wrong to deliberately alter scriptures. When scholars do that it makes the scriptures look as if they are a falsehood. The name James is not the only change that has been made to scriptures. People have to conspire to make those changes.


con•spire/kənˈspī(ə)r/Verb
1. Make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.
2. (of events or circumstances) Seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment.

In a image capture of Matthew 4:21 from the Codex Sinaiticus, the name Jacob is given the interpretation James. That is your proof.


In a image capture of Mark 5:37 from the Codex Sinaiticus, the ΟΝ ending that follows the first instance is the accusative ending, and the ΟΥ ending of the second is the genitive.

Ιάκωβον = Jacob as a direct object in a sentence.
Ιακώβου = Jacob as a possessive noun.

Γιγνωσκω τον Ιάκωβον. = I know Jacob.
Γιγνωσκω τον του Ιακώβου αδελφον. = I know Jacob's brother.

And Mark 13:3 it is: ϊακωβοϲ. And in Mark 15:40 it is: ϊακωβου. And in Luke 9:28 it is: ϊακωβον. And in Galatains 1:19 it is: ϊακωβο.

Studying this further, I find that the last two letters after Jacob are words not being translated. See the scriptures for all program: Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

It literally is Jacob, and it is not being translated that way.

Greek is an inflectional language. This means that meaning is often conveyed in prefixes and suffixes, whereas in English we convey the same meaning with prepositions, word order and sometimes suffixes (not normally prefixes, though adverbial modifiers can often be prefixed [such as un- and under- and re-]).

Greek nouns and adjectives have endings that fall into three major groups, called "declensions". These declensions have five functional sets of endings determined by the function of the word in a sentence. The meaning is indicated in the last letter or two of the word. This is consistent for Greek nouns and adjectives.

Foreign words translated into Greek do not normally receive these endings. That's the case with the Hebrew names Ἀβραάμ (Abraham), Ἰσαάκ (Isaac), Ἰάκωβ (Jacob), among many others (if you check the translation of the LXX from Hebrew into Greek, you'll find so many of them!).

At some point in the Hellenization of Israel, certain traditionally Hebrew names (such as Jacob) took on case endings, which is a result of their converting the names into Greek. Instead of using the traditional form of the name Ἰάκωβ, we find case endings, such as Ἰάκωβος. It's a Greek version of the name, allowing it to function in all ways like Greek names.

Thus, there are two forms of the name:
1) the more ancient form, transliterated directly from Hebrew, not using any case endings -- used for the Patriarch Jacob.
2) the more Greek form, operating with case endings -- used for contemporaries of the Hellenists.


And so the bottom line is this, the name Jacob should have been translated as James.
 
Jacob Changed To James By Catholics

In the days of King James II the European bible was in Latin, and only the priest were allowed to have a bible.

Rubbish


The Vatican is of the belief that they have the right to change the wording of scriptures.

More rubbish
It was against Vatican law in those days for the public to be in possession of bible scriptures, or historical writings.

And more rubbish

And, as usual, you provide no evidence for these anti-Catholic lies.
 
Do a search on pagan rcc, then when you find out what they do then go to a site like vatican.va and see if you can find the false teaching there ....
but to use Wikipedia..... um no

Like the mitre hat the pope wears is from the dagon priest and you know its true because they also adopted 4 other things like kissing the ring and believeing he's infallible.
Since those 4 thing's wernt biblical but were dagon priestical well you have your answer....
 
Last edited:
The first recorded spelling of the name James is shown to be that of Walter James. This was dated 1187. The actual meaning of the name James is a matter of dispute. James Jacobus Audithleg, Salop, 1273 AD. Hundred Rolls.
 
You claimed:
In the days of King James II the European bible was in Latin, and only the priest were allowed to have a bible.

Where does your Wikipedia article say that: “In the days of King James II the European bible was in Latin”?

Answer: – it doesn’t.

Fact: - many translations of the Bible, or parts of the Bible, were translated into the vernacular from the 8th century. Venerable Bede, living in his monastery in Jarrow in North East England, translated the Bible (or at least some of it) into Anglo-Saxon. Some say the whole Bible, but according to his scribe, the Deacon Cuthbert, he just completed translating John’s gospel before he died. I doubt he left that until last.

Saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Moravians in the 9th century and created the forerunner of the Cyrillic alphabet to translate the Bible into the local language.

Even earlier, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.”

Returning to English here are a couple of relevant quotes from "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham, chapter 11 which is entitled "Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff"

“....After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.....

“Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'”


Where does your Wikipedia article say that: “The Vatican is of the belief that they have the right to change the wording of scriptures.”

Answer: – it doesn’t.

Where does your Wikipedia article say that: “It was against Vatican law in those days for the public to be in possession of bible scriptures, or historical writings.”

Answer: – it doesn’t.

What is does say is that some problematic translations of heretical groups in particular localities at particular times were banned. However anti-Catholic websites extrapolated these particular bans into a general ban throughout time.

The Catholic Church cared very much about the integrity of translations of scripture. It did not want to withhold the scriptures from lay people, but make sure any translations they had were of good quality.

The two biggest problems for the common man in owning and reading the Bible was that:
  1. He couldn’t read
  2. He couldn’t afford a Bible.
During Bede’s life the Abbot of Bede’s monastery commissioned the monks to produce three complete Bibles. Each Bible used the hides from 1,030 calves to provide the vellum with nine scribes working on each Bible. When complete one Bible was almost half a metre high and weighed 75 pounds and with its protective box would have taken two men to carry it. Not exactly the thing to slip into your back pocket!

CherubRam. Think about this:
If as you claim
In the days of King James II the European bible was in Latin, and only the priest were allowed to have a bible.
And
“It was against Vatican law in those days for the public to be in possession of bible scriptures, or historical writings.”
Then what was the purpose of the Church translating the Bible into various vernacular languages?
 
Do a search on pagan rcc, then when you find out what they do then go to a site like vatican.va and see if you can find the false teaching there ....
but to use Wikipedia..... um no

Like the mitre hat the pope wears is from the dagon priest and you know its true because they also adopted 4 other things like kissing the ring and believeing he's infallible.
Since those 4 thing's wernt biblical but were dagon priestical well you have your answer...,
Your post is a violation of TOS 1.4 and 1.5 and has been reported as such.

Moreover the Pope's mitre is nothing to do with Dagan and like CherubRam , you provide no evidence for your lies.
 
1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16)

1.5: No trolling. No flaming or remarks used to intentionally upset members. Intentional disruption of this nature may result in immediate termination of your membership.

Any further violations of the ToS may result in removal from this discussion.
 
Back
Top