The Triquestra - Holy or Unholy Trinity

Wow -- now there is a surprise that in a question and answer forum of a KJVO site they would answer that way. Though you post a site--those speaking on that site have no more credibility than you. Not only that they too hold to a false man-made doctrine of KJVO. You really need to go to a legitimate source that has no agenda when trying to make a point, at least then you might have some credibility.

Bro Tony

 

Why don't you check out the site before you accuse my husband of lying. Kjos Ministries is the last name of the couple's ministry. Kjos does NOT mean King James Only. Try again and stop jumping to conclusions--and please try really hard to quit calling people names for defending the King James Bible.

 

SFIC, what possible motive could the NKJV translators have for promoting the New Age movement? If there has been a "crime" here, there must be a motive. Can you give me a single believable motive that would make conservative, Bible-believing Christians want to promote the New Age movement and/or witchcraft?

I am personal friends with one of the translators. He is a godly, good man (as well as a brilliant scholar) who attends an independent Baptist church. I have sat under his teaching both in seminary and SS at a well-known IFB church, and have been out on personal soul-winning with him. Yet you would have me believe that he and his fellow translators would willingly promote witchcraft. WHY? What possible motive could there be??

 

The publishers (Nelson's) also published the John R. Rice Reference Bible. You can't get much more Fundamental than that. I'm not saying it is a Fundamentalist publishing house, I'm saying that they are good Christian people, absolutely not New Agers. I helped a little with the JRR Reference Bible, typing out Dr. Rice's hand-written notes for the Decalogue, and though I had nothing to do with the business deal with Nelson's, I heard about it. Those are good people!

Why did they take it off? Perhaps as someone else said, to avoid the controversy being generated. But you've not answered my question as to motive. If the translators or publishers purposely put a New Age/Wicca/witchcraft symbol on the Bible cover, what motive could there possibly be? I absolutely cannot even imagine one!! Therefore, the symbol to them (whatever its true nature) had to be a good one. Therefore it is not right to criticize them for it, especially since they did take it off!

Please show me the flaw in my logic here. It looks airtight to me.

 

Is the Nelson Bookpublishers symbol,
the Cross between an 'N' and a 'B' --
isn't that a Pagan symbol also that
Nelson should be damned for not researching?

BTW, Nelson Bookpublishers also has
that Pagan symbol for themselves on
the spine of my KJV 1611 Edtion reprint.
You know, the one that has the Pagan
Sun god lithograph

 

Okay. I'm not convinced that the symbol is always heathen or meant to be heathen. The link you yourself gave (the non-KJVO one) says that the symbol started out as a Christian symbol in the early centuries.

Be that as it may, though I disagree with it, I'll accept your explanation here as sincere. However, I sincerely hope that you are not one of those making the silly charge that a Bible translation (especially one by conservative scholars) can actually be a New Age plot! That particular charge, once again, can attribute no possible motive to the translators that would make sense.

 

SFIC said:

ahhh, but the triquestra was seen on tarot cards before it was seen on the nkjv.

Tarot cards are an invention of the fourteenth century. The use of the triquetra as a Christian symbol goes back to the evangelization of the British Isles, half a millennium earlier or more.

 

What was the reason that it was took off?

[personal attacked removed]

The Procter and Gamble people still get unfairly slandered because of a man-in-the-moon logo that was stylish and perfectly harmless in the Victorian era when it was designed. Same thing.

[ May 15, 2006, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

The truth is, old symbols have meant different things in different eras. For example, the swastika was a good luck symbol for centuries, but since Hitler adopted it as the symbol for the Nazi party, it's almost universally stood for evil and in the USA, racism, since then.

And the T-shaped cross that now almost universally represents the crucifixion of Christ once stood as a symbol in ancient Babylon(the first empire, the time of Hammurabi) as a symbol of their gods Mithra and Tammuz.(son of Nimrod & his mother-wife Semiramis, the originators of the Mystery, babylon religion) Also, the Egyptians took the cross & made the top of the "t" into a loop, calling the symbol "ankh", with which you're prolly familiar. It wasn't until the late 300s during Constantine's rule, that the cross became a Christian symbol, largely because Christ was crucified upon such a cross. & due to a vision Constantine claims to have had at the time of his conversion.

I believe the triquestra(or 'triquetra') falls into this category of alternately being used for evil or good. It depends upon which era you're viewing it from.

The main argument against it today comes from the KJVO camp, which, lacking any evidence to support its doctrine, is constantly inventing new ways to attack all other versions. I believe THIS argument is as dead as their whole myth in general.

 

your calling me names because you disagree with the truth is sad.

Truth? Yeah. Whatever. Crackpottery, more like it.

 

Ransom--

Do you know how to use the QUOTE feature on this board? Looks like you are talking to yourself in your last post.

 

In the interest of accuracy, I believe you are talking about the Buddhist (not Hindu) symbol called a "manju," which is backward from the swastika. You still see it commomly at Buddhist temples and other places here in Japan.