Forbidden Knowledge

By Chris Masterson

For ten centuries, religious authorities maintained complete control by manipulating the masses. They secretly used repressive means to prevent the spread of ancient knowledge they considered dangerous. If left unguarded, this knowledge in its original form would encourage the people to think for themselves! Precautions were taken to insure the people remained dependent on the self-appointed guardians to read the ancient texts in their stead and provide private interpretations on their behalf. This we called the dark ages! Others called it mind control!

Periodically, a monk from the order would rise up and alert the people of this unfair advantage. But before they could bring about change, these rebels were hunted down, imprisoned and executed. Fortunately, they planted the seeds of rebellion in the minds of the masses before they died! To defuse the uprising, the powers issued a Bible the people could read for themselves. Howbeit, they were not able to compare what they were given to the original texts they were forbidden! Did the dark ages really end or did the powers-that-be merely change their method of control? You decide!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Chris Masterson
• Release date: Jan 22, 2012
• ISBN: 9781465749772

Chris Masterson

Born and raised in the city of Chicago, IL. About 10-years ago, took up writing as a hobby; mostly documenting experiences that might be explained as spiritual or supernatural. After the recession began in 2008, decided to take writing a little more serious. Thanks for your support.

Book preview

FORBIDDEN

KNOWLEDGE

By

Chris Masterson

SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

Chris Masterson on Smashwords

Forbidden Knowledge

Copyright © 2012 Chris Masterson

DEDICATION

Rosa Mae Bond

The wind beneath many wings!

PREFACE

The purpose of this book is not to challenge the perspectives any particular religion! I honestly do not have any qualms with religion. Well, maybe with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses! [joke] I do attend church regularly with my family [I’ll leave out the specifics] and I enjoy just about everything about the fellowship. But much of the material in this book is not what my church/denomination teaches! In addition to my religious preference, I am a Student of Biblical Research of about 25-years and the material in this book is based on various discoveries. My attitude towards religion is pretty much the same as my attitude towards Christmas. I do not believe Santa, Rudolph or Frosty are anything other than imaginary but to me that is no reason to not celebrate Christmas or try to rob children of such a joyful experience!

However, I do not believe the purpose of any religion is to create a bunch of mindless drones but rather a catalyst to self-discovery! Although I do not personally challenge religion, I do challenge prejudice and ignorance masquerading as religion! That said, the battle between atheism and religion has been going on for centuries. It is nothing new to the world. Religion believes there is an all-powerful deity sitting high upon a throne in a place called heaven; looking down and guiding all our lives like a puppet master pulling strings. Hence, our actions are not really our own. In contrast, the atheistic perspective is quite simply, those religious people are all crazy. The atheist mentality is not really all that sophisticated. All the atheist asks is that the religious-minded people provide proof.

Is there really an all-powerful deity controlling all our lives or is each one of us responsible for our own actions? One might even say, there are two basic kinds of people; the gullible and the not so gullible. Let me be clear, I don't mean gullible as an insult but rather a description of a certain type of mentality. Hence, the gullible person simply believes what they are told without requiring any proof. In contrast, the not so gullible person is not so willing to donate his faith but rather demands answers to a series of questions before he commits. Is one any better than the other? The answer to this question is a matter of perspective. That is, until these two types of people encounter each other and lock horns in a debate. In doing so, you will see how one person defends their faith and the other, challenges.

At this point we might ask, what makes one person gullible and the next person, shrewd? This might be a philosophical question that requires its own book. But off the top of my head, I can only speak of my own personal experiences and hope you can relate. I consider myself, astute but I will be the first to admit, I was not born that way. I was born like everyone else, innocent. However, I do believe we pick up personality traits from those around us, growing up. It's sort of like when a person raises a puppy or kitten; and said pets eventually display some of the same behavior traits as their owners. As a matter of fact, one of my closest female friends has a mild and timid personality. She was raising three cats; two male and one female. Whenever I visited, I pointed out how much I noticed the female cat acts just like her; while the two boys ... well ... boys will be boys.

Moving right along, early in my life I got involved with religion. I was taught the same basic Christian concepts; all of which I had to accept by faith. Why is that? Because the main source of information is the Bible; which was written thousands of years ago. You have no choice but to either accept it as truth (or by faith), if you want to be a good Christian. So, one of the most important words in religion is, believe. Having a lot of faith is the only thing that makes religion real. But to be crude, the process is not all that different than when we teach children about Santa Claus. Howbeit, I must admit, at the time, I was proud to claim I had faith and believed.

As a matter of fact, faith is the most basic teaching in any religion. Why? Because most of what you believe in is invisible and intangible. In addition, the Bible, at least the New Testament, teaches its readers to have faith. This is the tricky part. What exactly does the Bible mean by faith versus our modern definition? Are they one in the same? In a nutshell, the modern definition of "faith" means: believe without questioning. And that's exactly what millions upon millions of religious practitioners do. But will it surprise you to learn, faith only exists in the New Testament? What did people do for thousands of years before the New Testament? Well, if you pay close attention to the stories involving Adam, Abram, Noah, Moses, etc.; you will find they spoke to the ones they called deities, face to face.

The word faith is abstract. And abstractedness is something the ancient Hebrew people did do. Although, you might find a few abstract words in the Old Testament (e.g. wisdom), these are only the English translation. On the other hand, the New Testament is full of abstractedness. And as you will come to learn, this is one of the main differences between the ancient Hebrew people of the Old Testament and the Greeks of the New Testament. Be that as it may, the New Testament was written thousands of years ago which makes it completely different than today. So do not assume all the words carry the same definitions as Webster. Faith, in the New Testament is a little more than blind belief. The Greek word, pistis (PEES-tees), is more accurately translated: sure or assurance. And even if the word carries over into trust, it is not so much, blind trust.

One of the most popular lessons about blind trust is John 20:29:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Typically after hearing this text, religious practitioners dismiss any sign of common sense and just believe. But what is the reward? You are blessed. What does that mean, exactly? Who really knows? But the original Greek word, makarios (mah-KAH-ree-ahs), simply means: happy. So, the payoff for exhibiting blind trust is simply to be or become happy. To the more skeptic mind, that does not seem like an even exchange. But like I said before, I was proud (happy) to claim I had faith and believed.

That said, one of the most common approaches of the non-religious perspective is skepticism, or quite simply, to ask questions. Challenge what does not make complete sense; observe the contradictions. As opposed to one who has blind faith and accepts doctrine as presented, the skeptic challenges everything. This is not to say, he does not have faith. However, it is to say, he is not so willing to offer it so freely. The veteran skeptic will instantly challenge what does not make complete sense. For instance, the religious might say, God is a mystery. The skeptic might challenge, If God is such a mystery, how do you so easily dissect him into three distinct parts? And if God is spirit, why use masculine pronouns (i.e. he, him, his)?

Religion dictates, God is the Father; he made us in his image. The skeptic might challenge, If this is true, why are we not spirit like our Father? Why would a spirit Father make physical children? Of course there is a whole other line of doctrine to explain away why this is so. But the skeptic will only find holes in the story, flaws, contradictions and/or complete nonsense. For instance, if God is such a great mystery, how did the prophets represent this mystery; unless they understood the mystery; which ceases to make God a mystery; and so on and so forth. And especially, when the subject is homosexuality, the mystery God all of a sudden becomes a predictable bigot. And in the skeptic's mind, if God is such a great mystery; how can you (or anyone) profess to know him or have a personal relationship with him?

I spent a good half of my life as a practitioner of western religion. And I must admit, I wanted to be the best that I could be. I studied the Bible in English. I researched the origins of certain words (in Hebrew and Greek). Then, I eventually studied how to read the ancient texts on my own. Ironically, all of this is what changed me. The more I learned about the ancient texts, the more I was inclined to agree with the skeptics, better known as atheists. Why? Because the vast majority of what religious people learn based on the English version of the Bible, does not exist in the original ancient text. Nine-point-nine times out of ten, they are complete opposites! Why, oh why might that be? The most basic reason; the Old Testament was written by one group of people and the New, by someone else.

Religion purports, God created the planet earth and the entire universe in six-days. Hence, the science of evolution is a farce. It has to be! Especially, if one wants to BELIEVE what they read in the Bible is true. I believed this same doctrine for decades, without question. But the more I familiarized myself with the ancient texts, I learned differently. To my shocking surprise, I discovered the original Genesis, written in Hebrew, did not endorse the concept of God nor did it suggest the entire universe was created in six-days. As far as the ancient Hebrews could tell, there was no such thing as God. Why? They didn't write about, God: an all-powerful spirit entity that created planets, moons, stars, constellations and every other astronomical element in one week's time. They wrote about something else.

So, once I discovered the ancient Hebrews jotted down something other than what I read in the English version, I could not help but to be gradually transformed into a skeptic. This was years ago. Now, I am a skeptic with a black-belt. And the surprising thing about it; you don't even need to go as far as to study the ancient Hebrew Bible. Just simply question the most basic religious beliefs? For instance, I was told that if I got Saved, repented, obeyed the Bible, etc. my soul would spend eternity in heaven. But where in the Bible does it say that? Where exactly in the Bible does it say; some people go to heaven after they die and others go to hell? I'm still looking. And if this basic belief is not even biblical, why do so many believe it?

God is a mystery?

Another challenge is the Antichrist; that satanic person who will one day rule the world. But I looked and looked and could not find this guy anywhere in the Bible. Instead, I found 1John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3 and 2John 1:7. Howbeit, these verses do not speak of The Antichrist but rather they describe a certain type of person. Those who DO NOT BELIEVE Jesus ever appeared in the flesh (i.e. he is fictitious, invented, made-up) or Jesus is not The Christ they have the spirit of antichrist. These days, we call them atheists.

But don't take my word for anything. Instead, let me take on you the same biblical journey of discovery that I experienced long ago. Then, you can judge for yourself! And I encourage you to pay close attention and even take notes. And if you find any discrepancies or challenges, email me:

[e-mail]

But wait until you've read the book in its entirety. Although, I tried my best to be thorough and concise, you might find answers in chapters you haven't yet read. So be patient and don't rush.

In conclusion, I also found that atheists know the Bible a lot better than those who profess to live by the Bible. So, to say the least, this book can be a tool to help you learn the Bible better than you ever knew it before.

Good journey!

WHICH CAME FIRST?

During our studies, I will be using the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible since it is basically the template for every western Bible produced in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the English Pentateuch (first five books) of the Old Testament is not a direct translation of the original Hebrew Torah. The first European translation of the Bible is called the Greek Septuagint; a Latin word meaning: the Seventy [Interpreters]. The Greek Septuagint was translated in segments over the 3rd and 1st centuries BC. It reached completion by 132 BC.

During the reign of the Greek empire, the Septuagint was considered divine inspiration by the Greek church. However, by 382 AD, after the Roman empire had taken control, Saint Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damascus I to revise a bunch of old Latin translations of the scriptures. The result was the Latin Vulgate Bible; a translation of the Old and New Testaments in Latin. For the next 1000 years, the Vulgate would be the main source of inspiration in the Christian church of Europe. But at the time, Latin was a privileged language. Only the priesthood (and a few people of royalty) could learn it. In other words, the common folk could not read the Bible for themselves; provided they knew how to read at all.

The first English version of the Bible was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate by a rogue monk named John Wycliffe. It was completed in 1382 AD. This 1000-year time span (between 382 AD and 1382 AD) is known as the Dark Ages! The masses were literally (and on purpose) kept in the dark (ignorant) by the religious authorities of the time. However, the debate among scholars continues regarding the origins. The original Torah (written in the ancient pictographic Hebrew text) used to produce the Greek Septuagint no longer exists. However, the Jewish Bible, written in Aramaic-Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic alphabet/Hebrew words) does.

To this day, the debate among biblical scholars rages on. Is the Greek Septuagint a direct translation of the most ancient pictographic [cuneiform] Hebrew? Or is it merely a rendition that contains Greek ideals added that are non-existent in the Hebrew original from which it came? And in contrast, does the Jewish Bible (howbeit written in Aramaic-Hebrew) represent the ancient pictographic Hebrew texts or are its contents just as questionable? Pro-Greek Septuagint-ites maintain, the Jewish Bible is not an exact duplication of the original Hebrew Torah but rather the Greek Septuagint is!

In their own defense, the supporters of the Jewish Bible maintain, during their Babylonian captivity (in 597 BC), a group of scribes called Sofariym began the process of transforming the original texts written in the pictographic Hebrew script into a version using the Babylonian Aramaic script. Ergo, the writings would survive under Babylonian captivity. This took place more than 450-years before the Greek Septuagint was produced. As it stands, the Sofariym translated the Torah from their old Hebrew pictographic script to the new Hebrew script based on the Babylonian alphabet to preserve their writings. Did the Greek interpreters have this same goal in mind?

The last twelve

Reviews for Forbidden Knowledge

[Elkie Wednesday · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Mind blown! This book has perhaps inadvertently, opened up a pathway for so many answers I have been searching. Thankyou

[Jalen McLean · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

best book I've ever read, mind blowing is an understatement, I'm 17 and very confused as to what direction my life will take after obtaining this knowledge.