You cannot trust the NIV!

[Eliyahu]

This is the post which I mentioned about the differences between NT and LXX.


1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιθιον[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

His name shall be called


Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
You (feminine You) shall call his name


All 3 are different, because they translated the meaning instead of word to word.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)
LXX

Καλεσαι(call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX

3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα…[FONT=바탕].. [/FONT]αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος[FONT=바탕] (- )[/FONT]
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα[FONT=바탕] ([/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer[/FONT]





(quoted from Blueletterbible.com)

LXX used the synonym, but different word.

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
[FONT=바탕](delight in, pleasure)[/FONT]

LXX

Εζητησας

[FONT=바탕](seek, pursue)[/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]Chaphatsta[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕](pleased to do, delight in)[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is[/FONT]

There are hundreds of verses where LXX has disagreements with Greek NT, even though LXX is sometimes nearer to Greek NT than Masoretic Texts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents suggest us that there might have been a certain Hebrew underlying texts before LXX, and NT may have quoted such Hebrew Vorlage Text, not the Greek LXX which was written in Greek used by Pork meat eating, pagan worshipping, idol worshipping Greeks, full of myths during OT period.

[FONT=바탕]The claim that NT quoted LXX is a non-sense created by the people who try to advocate the Apocrypha and paganism, prayer to the dead. It is a Hoax.[/FONT]



[FONT=바탕]Helen,[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Would you explain to me why every verse of the above show the difference between Septuagint and New Testament, despite that you said they are exactly the same?[/FONT]

 

[xdisciplex]

Anywhere were somebody has transcripted these
sermons into letters & words. The word reading software tends
to be less maliticious than the audio & video. In fact, maybe God
is calling you, Brother Xdisciplex, to do some such transcripts?

As a matter of fact, I used the NIV for eight years and find it
totally trustworthy a Bible.
I quit using it because the nKJV = New King James Version
came out which uses the Textus Receputs texts more than
does the NIV.

Hi Ed,
you don't have to be afraid. This is a christian site with christian sermons. I download sermons all the time and have never had any problems at all.
Please, listen to this sermon or download it, it's for free. Click on "download" and then simply on later if they ask you to register, you don't have to register if you don't want to. Listen to this eye-opening sermon. Already the first 20 minutes of it will most likely change your mind about all these different bible versions, it's unbelievable how blasphemous some of these versions are.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=8150514459

I encourage everybody here who is a fan of different bible versions to listen to this sermon!!!

Those which don't want to listen also don't want to really know the truth, this is my opinion. It's crystal clear when you hear it. The new age bible supporters simply try to keep the whole topic so complicated that it's over the people's heads, this is their strategy. They want to make it look like you cannot understand it so you have to trust them because they are the "experts"....
I wonder when they will suddenly find even older and "better" manuscripts where Jesus says that homosexuality is okay and that adultery also isn't a sin. This will be fun.
Just keep looking for the updates of the new bibles. This way you're always up to date and always have the newest, most "scientific" bible. Because God likes confusion so much, right? This is why God likes it when there are 100 different bible versions for every taste which keep changing all the time. This sounds totally like God, who said this here:

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

[Amy.G]

Just a simple question. (Don't get mad)

Is it possible that the older manuscripts are not "more reliable" as the scholars suggest? (older, more reliable?) Is it possible that the most reliable manuscripts were worn out from excessive use? Is it possible that the older manuscripts are still partially intact from lack of use? Maybe the more reliable manuscripts were the ones that were worth copying. Just a thought.

I would like for someone to address this question as well. I've often wondered this myself. I'm not KJVO, but I do prefer the NKJV which I believe is translated from the same texts as the KJV. Yea, I know the NKJV version is "invalid" to some. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[xdisciplex]

I'm not KJVO, but I do prefer the NKJV which I believe is translated from the same texts as the KJV. Yea, I know the NKJV version is "invalid" to some. :smilewinkgrin:

This is wrong, Amy.
Do not be fooled. The NKJV is not from the textus receptus. If you want a KJV you need a KJV.

Listen to the sermon which I recommended it explains it all. :wavey:

 

[Helen]

part 1

Dear Eliyahu,

I’ll try to respond point by point.

First of all, a word about the Alexandrian Septuagint. It was not translated by Greeks, it was translated by Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. The later “Septuagints” are not the same at all, and I think this is what you might be mixing up. The later translations into Greek are also called Septuagints and were not translated by the Hebrews themselves and not before Christ. The later Septuagints were translated as a result of something Origen did. In the second century, he wrote what was called his “Hexapla”. In that Hexapla he took a number of texts and tried to bring them into conformity with the Masoretic text. It is said that he introduced changes with utmost freedom in this process. In “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts” (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 4th edition 1939), p. 58:

“Origen’s efforts were not directed towards the recovery of the original form of the Septuagint LXX, but at bringing it into harmony with the Masoretic Hebrew Text then current, and t do this he introduced alterations into it with the utmost freedom.”

So we need to make it quite clear that what we are referring to when we talk about the Alexandrian Septuagint is ONLY the translation done by Hebrew scholars in Egypt about 300 or so BC. The purpose of this translation was because many Jews were Greek speaking and did not understand Hebrew then.Israel was then part of the Grecian Empire. The LXX of that time enabled Jews to read their own Scriptures in a language they understood.

Now, you asked where the Old Testament we have differs from the chronologies in the Alexandrian LXX. Here are a few

Genesis 5:3 – our versions – “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son….”
LXX – And Adam lived 230 years and begot a son….”

Genesis 5:6 – our versions – “When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh.”
LXX – “Now Seth lived 205 years and begot Enos.”

Genesis 5:9 – our versions – “When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan.”
LXX – “And Enos lived 190 years and begot Cainan.”

Genesis 5:12 – our versions – “When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel.”
LXX – “And Cainan lived 170 years and begot Mahalalel.”

Yes, the NIV is the same as the KJV and other modern texts here, continuing the dropped 100.


You asked which prophetic statements were changed or dropped in the Masoretic. Here are the two you asked for. There are others:

In Hebrews 1:6, we find, in our New Testaments, “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’”
This is referenced to Deuteronomy 32:43. Please turn to it. You will not find that quote.
However, in the Alexandrian LXX we find, “Rejoice, you heavens, with him and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice you Gentiles with his people and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies and will reward them that hate him. And the Lord will purge the land for his people.”

If you look at a quote Matthew uses to confirm the Person of Christ in Matthew 13:35, you will find that these secrets, or dark sayings, are said to be from the foundation or creation of the world (depending on your translation). However, if you go into your old Testament to the referenced verse in Psalm 78:2, you will only find “things from of old” or similar. Now, if we look at the Alexandrian LXX, we find “I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning.”

It’s not a mammoth change, but it is a significant one.

 

[Helen]

part 2

Note that Romans 2:24, we read in the NIV “As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’” In the New King James it reads ‘“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.’
When we go to the NIV reference in 52:5, we read, “”’And now what do I have here?’ declares the Lord.
‘For my people have been taken away for nothing, and those who rule them mock,’ declares the Lord.”
In the King James, Isaiah 52:5 reads, “’Now therefore, what have I here?’ says the Lord, ‘that my people are taken away for nothing. Those who rule over them make them wail,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is blasphemed continually everyday.’”

Now, when we go to the Alexandrian LXX, here is Isaiah 52:5: “’ And now, why are you here?’ thus saith the Lord, ‘because my people was taken for nothing, wonder ye and howl.’ Thus saith the Lord, ‘On account of you my name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles.’”

You asked about the virgin reference in Isaiah 7. In the Alexandrian LXX, we read:
“Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” The word used there in Greek is ‘parthenos’ which means ‘virgin’ and not simply ‘young maid.’

So there is no problem with that in the Alexandrian.

In response to your next question, yes, the NIV translators did have access to materials not available to the King James translators. The KJ translators went directly back to the Received Text, dating 1488, by way of the Bishops Bible of 1602. The NIV translators were able to have access to the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, and, for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. They also cross-checked with other texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. That does not say they were more accurate, but it does answer your question about them having access to materials which dated much earlier than those available to the King James translators.
You asked me, “Do you believe that the Words of God need to be preserved under the providence of God?” when I mentioned that there were changed in science and history in the Masoretic. Of course I believe the Word of God is preserved under the providence of God. However, translators still had to depend on their own understandings of some things. We all do.

Yes, I am aware of the doings of the Roman Catholic church where not just Bible translators were concerned, but Bible believers as well. It is a deep problem that the majority of the world considers the history of the Roman Catholic church to actually be the history of Christianity. It most definitely is not.

Where does science clarify a little? Well, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We all have the pictures in our Bible story books of a nice round little earth. But that is NOT what the Hebrew is saying and science itself is showing that the real meanings of those words for ‘heavens’ and ‘earth’ are the correct ones. The word for ‘heavens’ is ‘shamayim’, from an unused root meaning ‘to be lofty, lifted up.’ The word for ‘earth’ is eretz (spelled differently by different folk), which means ‘that which is firm.’ And this firm stuff was without form and void. There is some very strong scientific evidence that the actual formation of the universe took place via plasma filaments, which ends up fitting with exactly the order Genesis 1 presents, but does not fit with a nice tidy little round world at the beginning of day one! So this is one case in which our conceptions of what a Bible verse seems to mean may well be being corrected by science. And in this case, the science fits exactly with a six literal day creation model, the earth being formed before the sun, and some of the other details given in Genesis 1.

You asked where the NIV is doctrinally correct where the KJV is wrong. The most famous is in one of the commandments: Is it “Thou shalt not kill,” as the KJV translates it, or “You shall not commit murder,” as the NIV translates it. Since all translations not only give the order for capital punishment for murder in Genesis 9 and yet command a great deal of killing later on as Israel takes the Promised Land, the difference between the two translations becomes critical regarding whether the Bible contradicts itself or not.

Regarding your second post on this subject, I think some words were left out because I could not get what you were trying to show in part of it. Maybe that’s just me…

At any rate, I hope I clarified a few things I was talking about and responded to your questions/challenges in the above.

 

[dispen4ever]

You've thrown a few curves, xdx, but by and large you are handling your topic well. Keep it up!

:wavey:

 

[dispen4ever]

Nice study, Helen.:flower:

 

[xdisciplex]

You've thrown a few curves, xdx, but by and large you are handling your topic well. Keep it up!

:wavey:

Thanks.

 

[Eric B]

Nice info on the LXX, but I wonder was the Apocrypha in all these version, since ther was such debate on that here before.

Where does science clarify a little? Well, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." We all have the pictures in our Bible story books of a nice round little earth. But that is NOT what the Hebrew is saying and science itself is showing that the real meanings of those words for heavens and earth are the correct ones. The word for heavens is shamayim, from an unused root meaning to be lofty, lifted up. The word for earth is eretz (spelled differently by different folk), which means that which is firm. And this firm stuff was without form and void. There is some very strong scientific evidence that the actual formation of the universe took place via plasma filaments, which ends up fitting with exactly the order Genesis 1 presents, but does not fit with a nice tidy little round world at the beginning of day one! So this is one case in which our conceptions of what a Bible verse seems to mean may well be being corrected by science. And in this case, the science fits exactly with a six literal day creation model, the earth being formed before the sun, and some of the other details given in Genesis 1.

You asked where the NIV is doctrinally correct where the KJV is wrong

I don't get this. This plasma filiment included some "firm" piece that was Earth but wasn't yet round?

 

[Eliyahu]

Helen,

I will explain you one by one for LXX as the subjects need some lengthy discussions.

1. As for the ancient Septuagint, which might have been translated by Jewish people before 200 BC,
- it is the translation of Torah only ( Pentateuch) not for the entire Old Testament.
- it doesn't exist today.

2. Currently available LXX is just the translation some hundred years after New Testament was introduced. There is a lot of possibility that this LXX reflected the modification to adapt itself to New Testament.

3. Now as for what you said about the years and ages of Genesis 5,

The followings are the figures:
Seth (130/230) - Cainan (105/205) - Enos (70/170) -Mahalaleel (65/165) - Jared (162/162) - Enoch (65/165) - Methuselah (187/167) - Lamech (182/188) - Noah's flood (600/600)
So, according to MT, from Adam to Flood is 1,656 years
According to LXX from Adam to the Flood is 2,238 years, and the difference is 582 years.

After the flood, till Abraham : the difference is 550 years, LXX is longer than MT. Total difference is 1,132 years.
If we accept the popular calculation that the age of the world is about 6000 years, you may reach 7,132 years, which is still short of 8,000 years.

Now the real question is the credibility of LXX. Before we think about it, we must remember that Bible sometimes omit or abreviate the generations as we notice in Mt 1:1-.

There is a famous argument supporting LXX. The supporters for LXX say Stephen was quoting LXX in Acts 7:14.
But if we look at LXX, we find some ridiculous statement there!
Look at Genesis 46:27 of LXX:
Joseph had 9 sons! Who are they? Who are the sons of Joseph other than Ephraim and Manasse?
LXX say 75 people went down to Egypt in Gen 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. But LXX mention 70 souls in Deut 10:22 ! LXX betrays its own statement!
What a wonderful calcualtion!

If you compare LXX with MT many verses one by one, you will find this:

LXX was not the Word-to-Word translation, but Thought-to-Thought translation. In such case, the story that 72 people translated the Pentateuch in 6 groups, then they brought the same translation exactly without single difference in letters is HOAX! If it was a Word-to-Word translation, it could happen ( but even in this case it can hardly happen!)

I will post the other subject in the next post.

 

[Helen]

Yes, we do still have the Alexandrian LXX today. It is the entire "Law and Prophets" -- Old Testament -- as well as (and evidently they were reluctant to include it) the apocryphal books.

We have a copy of it.

You also seemed to ignore that I mentioned that both Genesis 5 AND 11 omit the cipher for 100 in a number of places.

Finally, plasma is neutrons with the electrons stripped off. This is matter which is shapeless and void. The interactions of these plasma filaments formed stars, planets, and galaxies and black holes with their associated quasars. We see it happen on a small scale in the lab and since plasma filaments behave the same way no matter the scale, there is growing evidence even in secular science that it was not gravity which pulled the space material together, but the plasma filaments interacting with each other.

The formation of the planets would have been quite rapid, with the core of the rings, or the sun, being formed last. The Bible indicates exactly the same thing.

And, again, you seem to be discussing the other LXX versions which did come after 70 AD. However we are discussing the far more ancient Alexandrian.

 

[Eliyahu]

Helen,

Now I will explain about Heb 1:6 and Matt 13:35 which are claimed to be the quotation from Dt 32:43 and Psalm 78:2 respectively.

1. Heb 1:6

<< Και προσκυνησατωσαν αυτω παντεσ αγγελοι Θεου >>

LXX Deut 32:43


<<και ενισχυσατωσαν αυτω παντεσ αγγελοι Θεου>>

Could you see the difference again?
Among 6 words, Proskunesaton is changed to Enisxusatosan !
This type of difference is almost everywhere in NT!
If NT writers were quoting LXX, why did they change the words like that?
I already mentioned 4 verses which have differences between NT and LXX.
Actually Heb 1:6 doesn't say it was quoting from Deuteronomy. It might be quoting from Psam 103:20 and 104:4 or we can imagine ancient situation, because Bible was extremely expensive and cost more than the price of a normal house ( KJV cost in the beginning 3.4 pound plus 1.2 pound tax which resulted in 3-4 month salary at that time). So one or two Bible could be available in a town at the time of Disciples, I guess. Therefore Disciples had to use the Book of Worship service or simplified books for reference.
Another situation which is more likely is that there were about 3 types of Hebrew OT at the time of Jesus and He was quoting such Hebrew OT which might have been the basis or closer to the basis of Post-LXX.
One thing very clear is that NT was NOT quoting LXX!

2. Psalm 78:2 quoted in Mt 13:35

If you compare carefully between 2 groups and MT and LXX, and NT, you will find no problem or no discrepancy between MT and NT. All 3 groups are coinciding each other, because there could happen some difference when they translated from Hebrew into Greek.

MIni-Kedem ( Hebrew) coincides with Apo-Arche, which can mean of ancient or from the beginning of the world, depending on whether we translate it Word-to-Word or Thought-to-Thought.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that NT was quoting LXX. nor can we trust that LXX is more accurate as we notice LXX betrays LXX, and LXX translates Thought to Thought.

The Most important point which we should notice is this:

NIV translators or other Modern Version translators often criticize Masoretic Text and sometimes say that LXX is more accurate than MT. If so, why don't they tranlate their OT based on LXX? Why don't they behave as they think and claim? If LXX is so accurate, then why nobody is translating OT based on LXX?
If Mark 16:9-20 is not the part of the genuine Bible, why does nobody delete such verses from their Bible? Is it because, if they do so, they cannot sell the Bible? Do they value money more than the Truth? Don't they believe that God will preserve the truth and keep their business and life well ? Should we trust such people who do not behave as per they claim and believe? Are they trustworthy?
Many Bible say that the story about the woman caught in the adultery in John 8:1-11 is the addition of later times, not the genuine Bible. Then, why don't they delete such portion of Bible from their Bible? Do they worry that nobody will buy such Bible if they delete? Don't they believe that Almighty God will not help them if they do so? If it was the human addition, will God not help them to preach the only Truth, deleting the hoax?

I have a lot more to say about this issue since I have translated Bible for myself. but I would refrain from it for awhile.

 

[Eliyahu]

And, again, you seem to be discussing the other LXX versions which did come after 70 AD. However we are discussing the far more ancient Alexandrian.

Do you have a copy of it?

I thought nobody in the world has one before Christ.

You have wrong information adn therefore misunderstand the facts.
If you have any copy of Pre-Christ LXX, show me! The whole world will be surprised!

 

[Eliyahu]

I will comment on part 2 later. But simply I got the impression that you try to compromise with the theory of Evolution with Genesis.
You cannot believe that Earth could be formed earlier than the Sun, but I can believe it!

Then you don't understand about the Law, Thou shalt not kill!

NIV do not understand the Law either, they made many mistakes.

 

[Helen]

some of the Apocryphal books were written after the Alexandrian LXX and refer to it.

The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.
from http://www.bible-researcher.com/brenton1.html

Sidlow Baxter, in his book "The Strategic Grasp of the Bible" mentions that the grandson of the author of Ecclesiaticus states that the Hebrew Scriptures had already been translated into Greek when he, himself, translated Ecclesiaticus from Hebrew into Greek. He wrote around 200 BC

The Alexandrian is available here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0913573442/?tag=baptis04-20

As far as the plasma model is concerned, this is part of my husband's research and no, we are not compromising with evolutionary interpretations. But data is still data and God has not lied in His creation.

Finally, if the commandment is truly not to kill, then God commanded His people time and time again to disobey His commandment! That is not the God of the Bible....
​

 

[xdisciplex]

Now, I'm confused. I always hard that the NKJV does not use the masoretic text for the Old Testament and the TR for the New Testament like the KJV. But a friend of me told me this:

The New American Standard Bible was a revision of the American Standard Version. The Amplified Bible is also a revision of the American Standard Version. Contrary to this teachers teaching, the New King James Version does NOT take after these versions at all. The NKJV is an update of the King James Version that does not make any alterations on the basis of the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament texts established by modern scholarship, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James Version.

 

[Helen]

To the best of my knowledge, ALL of our Old Testament texts in English are from the Masoretic. The English translation of the Alexandrian LXX is the one which is not. I think the Samaritan Text may also have an English translation -- in which case it is not Masoretic either.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/samaritanpentateuch.html

 

[BobRyan]

Finally, plasma is neutrons with the electrons stripped off. This is matter which is shapeless and void. The interactions of these plasma filaments formed stars, planets, and galaxies and black holes with their associated quasars. We see it happen on a small scale in the lab and since plasma filaments behave the same way no matter the scale, there is growing evidence even in secular science that it was not gravity which pulled the space material together, but the plasma filaments interacting with each other.

The formation of the planets would have been quite rapid, with the core of the rings, or the sun, being formed last. The Bible indicates exactly the same thing.

That is interesting and it makes the formation of the Sun's light come after the earth - but does it allow for a 24 appearance of the Sun's light? Does it simply "ignite"? at some point in that model?

 

[Helen]

That is interesting and it makes the formation of the Sun's light come after the earth - but does it allow for a 24 appearance of the Sun's light? Does it simply "ignite"? at some point in that model?

Following what plasma filaments do, the first thing which would have happened as they started to come together, rapidly, on day one, would have been the black holes and their associated quasars. This would have happened about half way through day 1 -- "Let there be light." Shortly thereafter as the filaments continued to attract each other and pinch, the hubs and cores of the galaxies would have lit -- these are Job's morning stars, lit by the end of day one.

What happens to plasma filaments by themselves is what is fascinating, however, and this also would have started on day one. The filament will form a 'ring' of 'beads' around it, which will start to swallow up one another until there is only one circling the filament. Then another ring will form inside the first, with a series of beads which will also swallow each other up until one is left, leaving a second rotating body inside the first around the filament. This goes on a series of times until finally the core is all that is left and it lights up. Thus we have our solar system (and others) formed, with the planets circling the sun. Our sun is in a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy and the spiral arms did not light up when the hubs and cores did, but rather about four days later, just as the Bible says.

Here are some links which show what plasma filaments can do:

http://jtintle.wordpress.com/2006/06/02/plasma-galaxies/
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/galaxy.Radio.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051031plasma.htm

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040505.html -- this shows the z pinch of plasma

You can see the 'beads' forming here:
http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/plazma/phenomena_en.html#instab


Haven't checked much on this page but the photos are great
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_sol01.htm

I found this fascinating article in looking things up for you:
http://www.maverickscience.com/myth-ladder.pdf

If you get the drift of the first 24 or so pages, then skip down to the conclusion, you will see that the 'ladders' in petroglyphs and ancient stories are exact representations of what plasma filaments do in the earth's atmosphere. This also might be an indication of a much more active time in the earth's history -- 'in the beginning' -- before all had settled down. Barry and I have printed off this article and want to study it a bit more closely.

The plasma articles are figuring time in the billions of years. However that is under the assumption that atomic processes have always been going at the same rate as now, and even our own measurements over the past hundred or so years show that is not true.

When the early rate of atomic processes is mathematically calculated into the plasma reaction times, the result is an entire cosmos created exactly as the Bible tells us in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Just found this one...http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060602plasma-galaxy.htm