Demon possession in the old testament?

Cant use heavily altered texts, such as the septuagint LXX (with its 20,000 errors) and expect to be in truth, I have a similar experience, it started with me not understanding so I used 3 bibles and was like...ummmm... why do they all read slighty different, then the footnotes mentioned alternate texts.... My quest had begun!

it's not some conspiracy here. i, like yourself, are people who study the Bible and then like to know meaning to what we read. and then when you get online and see a multitude of the same Verse from different Bibles, and notice some are off and some use completely different or opposite words, you begin thinking about what does the most Original Source say. And when you get to the Hebrew for the Old Testament and compare, i know my first immediate thought was, how wrong am i on this and this and that because of the Bible i was reading I only knew its translation. And then when I learned how my Bible's Translation came to be, the Hebrew was not just the most Truest Translation, but you get the Truth immediately because it is spelled out in each Verse.


Look at how clear and precise this Verse is and there is no guessing what GOD is saying here:

Genesis 6:4
הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֮ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ {פ}
It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth—when divine beings cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

Isaiah 34:16, “Search from the book of יהוה, and read: not one of these shall be missing, not one shall be without a mate, for He has commanded my mouth. And His Spirit shall gather them.”

Psalm 1, “Blessed is the man who shall not walk in the counsel of the wrong, And shall not stand in the path of sinners, And shall not sit in the seat of scoffers, But his delight is in the Torah of יהוה, And he meditates in His Torah day and night. For he shall be as a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That yields its fruit in its season, And whose leaf does not wither, And whatever he does prospers. The wrong are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind blows away. Therefore the wrong shall not rise in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For יהוה knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wrong comes to naught.”

Here's a good documentary on the preservation of the Bible you might be interested in.. It covers some of the Bible history, particularly with the director of the Bible museum. It's available in high quality if you want to watch it that way. Just go to the settings upper right of the screen.

It's a good doc, there used to be a really good one on YT cant remember what its called, but im not a fan of the KJV, it was a counter to the Geneva Translation, the KJV contains some altered text manuscripts, one such mauscrupt has an entire verse added in the margin of the manuscript, not even in the quthors handwriting as late as the 15th century and yet its included in the translation. There are 300 branching manuscripts of the NT, and most of the official like translations use questionable texta, in any case I like translations that have foot notes of what the different manuscripts say and some info of those texts history. Ohh and the book of James is called James because King James wanted his name in the Bible, it should be Yaaqob/Jacob. But this does have some good info in it, Tyndale was a real seeker of truth it seems and this documentary seems to recognize that, so good stuff.

How did that change anything since Jacob and James are the same name, I am curious? Had they called the book Giacomo, Jaime, Jacques, Seamus, Iago, or Jakob, would that have changed it? These are all the same name and same meaning as Jacob so how did calling it James change anything other than using the Greek and English name for English readers using that variation instead of Hebrew?

Inconsequential indeed, but alter manuscripts not so inconsequential. Jacob and James are different names, but that is not a big deal, but it is altered, also, like I said about the manuscript content. With that said, I dont think any translation is perfect some are better than others.

I don't think I have ever found a specific account to point to possession in the old testament as defined and pointed out in the new. I don't believe it was emphasized as it was a different setting. By that the focus was on the nation of Israel vs a backdrop of a pagan nation.

I believe the emphasis in the New Testament is because God as I see over and over in the bible uses line upon line and precept upon precept. By that I find God is totally purposeful. With direct intention he created a physical world that he could turn into parables and show his wisdom and his kingdom.

We oft hear folks say they learn better by hands on and others say by book reading. I find God did both. He created a physical world that is hands on so that we could take those lessons combined with the book and have a clearer picture of him and our relation to him. Examples such as marriage something we could live out and gain understand through the hands on then apply what is written with experience and come to a better understanding of him and our relationship with him.

So I believe it was intentional Christ came by no mistake at the height of Rome the height of a kingdom of this world he had foretold of this kingdom in Daniel. A kingdom of our enemy, but one Christ was in and the backdrop of him set in. I believe he did so when it was said we are in this world but not of the world. Living in this modern secular world we can have a picture and see just as Christ had all authority in the heart of this worlds kingdom. We as ambassadors and servants through him can walk in this present worlds kingdom and have the authority of Christ to preach the gospel and tear down the devils kingdom as he did.

Showing his glory that he can set up camp in the presence of his enemies and still be victorious. He came, he saw, he conquered. So I find it is emphasized in the New Testament to show he has all authority and now we are built upon the rock and can go forth in the midst of a wicked and crooked generation and do the same all for his glory reflecting him and who he is.

How are they different? Jacob and James mean supplanter. Is there difference in that they are in different tongues because God came down and changed men's tongues. Reason I ask is you speak as though you have authority that we should

Apologies I got called away and hit submit by accident before I had finished my thought. I am asking because you seem to be saying we should question the bible and then use the example of this reason in the difference of a use of a name. I find that what God uses his word for us to get across the spirit of the letter more so than the letter of the law.

Years ago I was watching a comedy. A husband and wife driving together. The husband drove through a drive thru. He turned to the wife and asked are you hungry. She said no he got his food and drove off. She then turned to him and said she was mad because he did not order anything for her. He said I asked if you were hungry. She said I am not but I wanted something. You asked me if I was hungry which I am not. You should have asked if I wanted something so I could have said yes.

I find it is that way with Christians at times we believe something should be said the way we believe it should. We believe that the convictions God places on our hearts are for everyone else. So I am asking in that regard. Since you used the variation in a name that means the same. Are we to question the precept that God is trying to get across because a word is not to your liking?

Will God refuse to hear our prayers if we say in Jesus name instead of saying in Yahushua's name? So this is why I am curious I am wanting to find out your intention behind what you say? Looking to find out your reasoning why you would use the difference in how a name is used to cast doubt and why you then would have the answers for us.

I did not know.
Yeah, that puts another type of view towards my Dakes KJV now.

That is flat out false, and misleading.

Well it is a different name

James 1:1, “Ya‛aqoḇ (G2385), a servant of Elohim and of the Master יהושע Messiah, to the twelve tribes who are in the dispersion: Greetings.”

G2385 Ἰάκωβος Iakobos (ya-kō'-ɓos) n/p.
1. (meaning) heel-catcher.
2. (person) Jakob, son of Zebedee, elder brother of John, from Galilee, an Ambassador of Jesus.
3. (person) Jakob, son of Alphaeus; an Ambassador of Jesus; perhaps Jakob was related to Matthew of Alphaeus (as brother, half-brother, step-brother, 2nd cousins, unknown, etc).
4. (person) Jacob, the half-brother of Jesus; also called “little Jacob,” son of Joseph and Mariam (Mark 15:40), and author of the epistle of Jacob (aka James).
5. (person) Jacobus Thaddaeus, the father of Judas Lebbaeus who was an Ambassador of Jesus.
6. (Note) “Jakobos” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Jacob (Ya'akob). “James” is from a Latin transcription error which became an anglicized variation of Jacob.
[the same as G2384 Graecized] KJV: James Root(s): G2384

I never said question the Bible, I said there are altered manuscripts, as an example, anything added 100+ or 1500 years later is not inspired.

The Spirit is the true intent of the letter. Man twsits the letter commonly. The Spirit of YHWH leads truthfully.

John 16:13, 13 “But when He comes, the Spirit of the Truth, He shall guide you into all the truth. For He shall not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears He shall speak, and He shall announce to you what is to come."

I cant say every reason He will or wont listen other than what is written. My opinion is YHWH tries, tests and judges the heart, for sure He will reject those who are evil, but this I know because it is written:

Isayah 59:1-3, “Behold, YHWH's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; nor His ear heavy, that it cannot hear. But your own iniquities have separated you from your Father; and your own sins have caused Him to hide His face from you, so He will not listen. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; sin. Your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perverseness."

As far as His name, I think it's a good thing to use His name, I know this also because it is written

Jeremiah 16:19-21, "O YHWH, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles will come to You from the ends of the earth, and will say: Surely our fathers have inherited nothing but lies and vanity of no use at all! Do men make gods for themselves? Yes, but they are powerless! Therefore behold, I will make them to know--this time I will teach them My power and might; and they will know that My Name is YHWH!"

Psalm 116:13, "We will take the cup of salvation, and we will call upon Your Name, O YHWH."

They are the same. Using your own source, G2385. It says this under the following heading.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

James.
The same as Iakob Graecized; Jacobus, the name of three Israelites -- James.
see GREEK Iakob
https://biblehub.com/greek/2385.htm

When we look up what Iakob means G234 it says under the following heading.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2384: Ἰακώβ

Ἰακώβ, ὁ (יַעֲקֹב (i. e. heel-catcher, supplanter)), Jacob;
https://biblehub.com/greek/2384.htm

My ascertain was they are the same because both mean, supplanter. You in your current post say that it only means, heel-catcher. Which I agree it does mean that as well but I choose supplanter just to show that the names are the same in their different languages.

Meaning & History
From the Latin Iacob, which was from the Greek Ἰακώβ (Iakob), which was from the Hebrew name יַעֲקֹב (Ya'aqov). In the Old Testament Jacob (later called Israel) is the son of Isaac and Rebecca and the father of the twelve founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. He was born holding his twin brother Esau's heel, and his name is explained as meaning "holder of the heel" or "supplanter", because he twice deprived his brother of his rights as the firstborn son (see Genesis 27:36). Other theories claim that it is in fact derived from a hypothetical name like יַעֲקֹבְאֵל (Ya'aqov'el) meaning "may God protect".

The English names Jacob and James derive from the same source, with James coming from Latin Iacomus, a later variant of the Latin New Testament form Iacobus. Unlike English, many languages do not have separate spellings for the two names.
https://www.behindthename.com/name/jacob

The name James: Summary

Meaning
He Who Closely Follows, Supplanter

Etymology
From the verb עקב ('abaq), to follow at the heel or supplant.

Related names•
Via עקב ('abaq): Akkub, Jaakobah, Jacob

The name James in the Bible
The English name James is the same as the Greek name Jacobos, which in turn comes from the Hebrew name Jacob, the arch-father who became Israel.
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/James.html

You also at current say that James was a transcription error. Which I have not found that to be said instead I have found how it evolved and changed to the present form.

Etymology of the name James

The name James comes, after a very curious evolution, from the Hebrew name Jacob. The name Jacob, in turn, comes from the Hebrew verb עקב (aqab) meaning to take by the heel or supplant:

Excerpted from: Abarim Publications' Biblical Dictionary

עקב
The noun עקב ('aqeb) means heel or rear, but may describe anything lowest, last or sequentially coming.
Verb עקב ('aqab) means to follow at the heel or supplant.
Adjective עקב ('aqeb) means overreacher;
adjective עקב ('aqob), insidious or deceitful;
adjective עקב ('aqob), tricky or treacherous (of terrain).
Noun עקבה ('aqeba) means deceitfulness and noun עקב ('eqeb), consequence.
— See the full Dictionary article —

When in Greek times people were named after Jacob — the arch-father of Israel — they were given the Hellenized version Jacobos (Iakobos). In the 4th century AD the Greek Septuagint was translated into Latin, and the name Iakobos became transliterated into Iacobus. Late Latin turned that into Iacomus — the b and the m being somewhat similar in sound in nasal languages. The early French version of this Latin name became the shortened Gemmes, which then traveled into the English speaking world as James.

When the Bible was translated into English, the translators truncated the Greek names into the versions we know now — Paulos became Paul, Petros became Peter (but Titus and Jesus, curiously, remained Titus and Jesus; perhaps this is because people didn't want to be reading from the book of Tit, or pray to Jees). And the name Iakobos didn't become Jacob, it became James, and this while King James VI of Scotland ordered in 1604, "a translation to be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek ... ".

James meaning

The name James doesn't mean anything, but it came from the name Jacob, which means Supplanter.
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/James.html

By what authority did the translators of the KJV (and other translations) change the name of the book of YAAKOV (Jacob) to JAMES? The original Greek states this author’s name as “IAKOBOY”, or Jacob in English. Thank you.

You are correct in your awareness of the Old Testament designation “Yaakov” (Hebrew) and the New Testament designation, “Iakboy” (Greek).

Tracing the etymology of a word is a fascinating endeavor. And as it is translated from language to language, or even its development within a language, spelling and pronunciation often change. Beyond the Greek and the Hebrew, this word went through several stages of the Latin language (i.e., Old Latin, New Latin, Late Latin), and there were further influences of the word through the barbarian tribes that overran Western Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries. In England this involved two distinct blending of languages–the first by the Anglo-Saxons (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), who overlaid their language on top of the (1) Latin & (2) Celtic (two dialects: Brythonic and Goidelic) amalgamation as they conquered much of England between the fifth and seventh centuries, and second, by the Norman/Vikings, who overlaid their language upon all of that during the eleventh and twelfth centuries!

One of the reasons the English Language is such a rich one is because of the blending of these linguistic strains which created totally different words for identical things: for example: lamb-mutton, brotherly-fraternal, etc.

The words Jacob and James come out of this matrix. Jacob follows the French/Norman tradition (Jacobin, for example), and James comes out of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

The use of “James” in the King James Version was not something they had to think about. It was already imbedded into their language as the equivalent of “James” or “Jacob.” Since this translation from Greek and Hebrew involved putting the text into readable and understandable English, they chose the popular word already in circulation.

Actually, three common English names come out of this: James, Jacob, and Jack.
https://probe.org/why-did-the-book-of-jacob-get-changed-to-the-book-of-james/

Continued below...............

James
masc. proper name, New Testament name of two of Christ's disciples, late 12c. Middle English vernacular form of Late Latin Jacomus (source of Old French James, Spanish Jaime, Italian Giacomo), altered from Latin Jacobus (see Jacob).

Entries linking to James
Jacob

masc. proper name; Old Testament patriarch, son of Isaac and Rebecca and father of the founders of the twelve tribes, from Late Latin Iacobus, from Greek Iakobos, from Hebrew Ya'aqobh, literally "one that takes by the heel; a supplanter" (Genesis xxv.26), a derivative of 'aqebh "heel."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/James

To quote you from post #165.

"Ohh and the book of James is called James because King James wanted his name in the Bible, it should be Yaaqob/Jacob."

That is not the case. The Geneva Bible which proceeded the KJV uses the name prior.

James 1:1 Iames a seruant of God, and of the Lord Iesus Christ, to the twelue Tribes, which are scattered abroade, salutation.
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Geneva/59/1

The Tyndale bible as well used James prior to the KJV.

Tyndale Bible of 1526 Par ▾

A Greeting from James
(Jude 1:1–2)

1Iames the seruaut of God and of the Lorde Iesus Christ sendeth gretinge to ye .xii. trybes which are scattered here and there.
https://biblehub.com/tyndale/james/1.htm

Wycliffe's Bible

1James, the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve kindreds, that be in (the) scattering abroad, health. (James, the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes, who be in the scattering abroad, or in the dispersion, or the Diaspora, greetings.)
https://biblehub.com/wycliffe/james/1.htm


Was the Epistle of James Named After King James?

Posted on 04/26/2013 by Natan Lawrence

James 1:1, James. This name is the English form of the Old French variation of James from the Late Latin name Iacomus, which was derived from the Greek New Testament name Iakobos, which in turn derives from the Hebrew name Ya’aqov.

This was the name of five men recorded in the Testimony of Yeshua.

The Testimony of Yeshua/The New Testament from my 1790 KJV Bible.

It is speculated that the development of Iacobus to Iacomus is a result of nasalization in the French language of the o and assimilation to the following b followed by simplification of the cluster mb through loss of the b.

The notion that the name James derives from King James of England, who ordered the translation of the Bible version (published in 1611) that bears his name, is erroneous. This is because earlier English versions of the Bible (the Geneva Bible published in 1557 and the Wycliffe Bible published 1382 to 1395) used the name James (the English equivalent name Jacob) long before King James was born.
https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2013/04/26/james-named-after-king-james/

Jacob (aka James).

Words are spelled with letters, these words contain different letters.

This is such a good question, I never considered it.

You are being dishonest with that replay aren't ya? I made it clear that I was referring to the names that they had the same meaning in their various languages.

You were aware as well that was my argument when you intentional using deception, left off that the name meant, supplanter. Then lied and said that there was a transcription error. You are aware you are lying hence why you did not rebut with links to authoritative resources. It is not a good look when you say that we are under the law and use a name like, speak truth. Then go and intentional use deception to try and win a debate. It discredits you and the view point you are trying to get across.

If you argue we are under the law then use deception, does not the law say to be honest and to deal in honesty? Physician heal thyself.

I do not know if they were possessed by a devil in the Old Testament.

A person can be influenced by the devil but can they be possessed by the devil for to me possession seems like the devil would have control of the person and the human will to make choices is gone which they would be continually evil having the nature of the devil.

Has there been anybody that went to that extreme in the Old Testament.

The Bible says that at the time of the flood every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, and they corrupted God's ways on earth, and violence filled the earth.

This sounds like it could be possession by a devil for them to be that wicked.

The New Age Christ, antichrist, will be possessed by the devil which the devil will use him to deceive the world to rebel against God, and to try to deceive everyone spiritually, and the people that go against him to destroy physically, and then the people that follow him to have them destroyed physically at the battle of Armageddon.

The people that take the mark of the beast will have the nature of a devil and the human will is gone so they are possessed which the devils will deceive all people that do not love God to follow the New Age Christ.

It seems if a person is possessed by the devil then the devil will be the only influence in that person and the human will is gone to make decisions.

It seems like people can be influenced by the devil but only the New Age Christ, and the people that take the mark of the beast are possessed by a devil, but maybe the people at the flood but I kind of think they were not but influenced a lot by the devil.

For it seems like the only people that would be possessed by the devil would be the antichrist and his followers.