The Tainted Word of God

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

What I understood from Expostfacto thread was that our society is the antichrist. and the warnings from the bible are actually warnings from a previous civilisation who experienced it for them selves.

If I am a Christian and an Israelite, then after I die, I can go to heaven, in the meantime I can enjoy the might and power that comes from the war god Yahweh.

No you don't. As a Christian their is a high probability of "access denied"
As an Israelite You could seize to exist, go to an afterlife or reincarnate.

There were a few other threads I could have posted on, touching on this topic. It's precisely that Shane seemed to be attempting to persuade you about the Netherlands being 'true Zebulan' that I chose to post here. And also, your OP about the 1,000s year old hoax.

All I can go on is personal experience of how religion is taught in US. Maybe I should have posted somewhere else. American Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't exactly agree with the list you linked for difference between Christianity and Judaism.

State clearly whether you want me to post here or not! In the mean time I will say this: In a very real sense, the Old Testament is concerned exclusively with this Earth, the world, and which supposed tribe and city is blessed by and protected by some god, who destroys the enemy. Heaven is no higher than the clouds he rides on raining down destruction on those coming against the chosen city. That's it! Total role and function of that god.

Contrast the Book of Revelation. The worldly system is totally given over to the control of Evil. From heaven comes the 'real city' and in a great war, with blood flowing high, the 'real' city is established on earth. The basic premise is the same. 'god' is a city god, the only question is: which city is the real, which god is the real?

I've pretty much concluded that the true God is neither one. The very people claiming the heavenly city, this applies to American Fundamentalists mostly, are the very ones pushing for the present earthly city. They do this quite cynically 'knowing' ahead of time, so they think, that the earthly will be destroyed. Meaning they are the ones setting a trap for other people to be destroyed. Quite sickening and disgusting.

I'm sorry but I can't go along with any of that. My God isn't a city god at all. My God is not a god who requires destroying armies, be they earthly or heavenly. The status quo, if you want to call it the mark of the beast is precisely the need people feel for a war god, protecting them, 'the chosen', and destroying every one else. That's the 1000s year old hoax, and that's the mark of the beast.



[edit on 21-3-2010 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena


Your more then welcome to post here especially because what you say is more than relevant.

One of my first problem with Christianity was that it acts contradicting what is preached and then that it's contradicting the very source it comes from. Judaism.

Thank you for posting here.

Shane has until this moment give me any reason not to listen to what he has to say. What I do with it is up to me.

What I have seen of religion and America has shocked me to the core.
I hope they only showed the worst of the worst. I'm guessing from you post it's more common then I would like.
We have here in the Netherlands also a fundamental religious community. Fortunately there are not enough. But just a little bit less creepy ( still creeps me out ) that group has spread out to all parts of society.

When I see a tv personality who always showed he/she was intelligent and with both feet on the ground in the midst of society.
Suddenly they say without a single doubt the Earth is 6000 years old. Gays should be cured and so on. Brrr shivers down my spine.

I think we feel the same way. I only looked at the thread more positive ( without war etc. The idea itself is what I liked. With my own spin on it.

Please show me what you got ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Is Canada really as great as some say.

We once were a great country, but during the late 60's and early 70's we became ensnared by a silver tongued demon named Pierre Trudeau and foolishly elected him and his socialist Liberal Party into power.

It took many years to unseat these weasels, and unfortunately by that time, the Social Assistance Generation and Union Supporters of the Auto Pack and Teachers Guilds had become addicted to the cash flow from my pocket to theirs.

The U.S. of A. has just ventured into the same situation, but I hope at least they can take back their country in the coming years rather than a decade or so down the road, when the tit suckers become of age to vote.

Just to make sure. Did you just said John the Baptist is Jesus his daddy ?

No, you mistook the association.

John the Baptist is a Second Cousin of Jesus.

Mary, (Jesus's Mother) is Elizabeths Cousin.

Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron, and Married one of the Priests of the Temple, Zacharias. This story is explained in detail in Luke Chapter 1

Elizabeth was quite old, and had no children due to some condition not clearly defined.

Zach was visited by Gabriel who advised him they would have John.

About 6 months later, Gabriel approached Mary, and advised her of her immeadiate conception of Jesus.

Once getting this news, Mary rushed to Elizabeth, to tell her the news, and when approaching Elizabeth, John leap in Elizabeth's womb, as the Son of God approached, just recently conceived in the womb himself.

The strangest thing about this story, is one that arises some 30 years later. You have heard of Jesus of Nazereth, haven't you?

Well there is two problems with this

1: At the time of Christ, there was no Nazereth.

When Jesus, at about 30, began his Mid East Ministries, he was Baptised by John, his Second Cousin.

2: John did not know who Jesus was.

This leads me to believe, Jesus was not the carpenter we have been misled to believe. Jesus did not live in Nazereth. Jesus was not in Israel from about 12 to 29-30 years old.

Yet around the Globe we see suggestive materials to indicate Christ was there.

Think about the Tibetian Monks who tell of the Teachings of Jesus.
The Traditions of Glastonbury England and his connection with Joseph of Aramethia.
Those on the Shores of Central America who indicated they where awaiting his promised return, when it actually was Cortez the Killer who arrived.

Just some other problems we need to take into account, and possibly why we see problems within the Scriptures and the misleading information actually suggested by the "Church".

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

What I have seen of religion and America has shocked me to the core.
I hope they only showed the worst of the worst. I'm guessing from you post it's more common then I would like.
We have here in the Netherlands also a fundamental religious community. Fortunately there are not enough. But just a little bit less creepy ( still creeps me out ) that group has spread out to all parts of society.

In the US, it's 40% of Christians. The most vocal, the most political, the fastest growing group. By political I mean the ones who want a hand in controlling the everyday lives of others.

When I see a tv personality who always showed he/she was intelligent and with both feet on the ground in the midst of society.
Suddenly they say without a single doubt the Earth is 6000 years old. Gays should be cured and so on. Brrr shivers down my spine.

Here's an example of Tony Blair:www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's religion for the sake of political power. In the US it's very heavy peer pressure, believe in the 6,000 year old earth or no one will listen to you. Believe that gays are bringing a curse from god on the country or we won't support your political campaign. Publicly pronounce Christianity and Judaism is better than Islam or we will suspect your patriotism.

I think we feel the same way. I only looked at the thread more positive ( without war etc. The idea itself is what I liked. With my own spin on it.

I think you can only be so genteel about some issues. I've read in a few places where even Jesus 'lost it' in addressing hypocrisy and religion performed for political gain and self glorification. And then add the idea that maybe killing a gay or two will make you all the more righteous in the eyes of others.

Please show me what you got ?

That's fairly non-specific. Part of what I see as a root problem is an obsession with self. As in 'I am the important one' 'me, me, me' 'I want a god who thinks I'm so important that he would kill his own son for me, me, me, me! Oh, I'm so important to god that he wants any number of thousands to be killed for me so my personal butt will be safe in this world.'

To illustrate: There was a movie, quite popular among American Christians called, 'The Passion of the Christ', after reading a review I decided that in no way would any money from me support this film. You may have heard of it. Some one was describing the horrific torture and brutality being inflicted on this man, and then a beatific expression came upon his face when he said, "and he went through it all for me." That's when I saw the depth the human ego can sink to.

If God came to and said, "You can choose. Either you can cease to exist completely and absolutely or you can have this other guy be a human sacrifice for you so that you can live forever." What would you choose?

It's quite obvious to me that American Fundamentalists have chosen there 'Lord' to be the fall guy. If they are so willing for their Lord to die for their own personal benefit, then what chance do any of us have if they hold the power of life and death over us?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Right and wrong.

Canonical books were debated for many years and finalized at the council of TRENT, not Nicea. Until that time, many different sects of Christianity utilized various books as their canonical texts, but there was no unilateral "Christian canon", rather "Catholic canon". After Trent, any books not decided upon for the finalized version of the Catholic canon were deemed heretical, or apocrypha.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by pthena


Wow. I never have thought about Christ's demise in that way.
I think you're right.

I saw that docu. from Bill maiyer yesterday. I u2u the link to you.
And there is a nuke or war not a bad thing for the riligious.

reply to post by cjcord


Thanks for the correction!
2nd.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas
I wrote a review of Bill Maher's Religulous here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I didn't realize it was 2 years old. I don't know if anybody would be interested any more. I did make an interesting observation though, if I do say so myself.

Gday,

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by cjcord

 

The (Authorized) 1611 King James Bible is the Bible - it is the only one that is authorized to be called "The Bible".

In fact, the KJV is one of the WORST translations of all time - it was done from a poor set of late manuscripts and abounds in errors.

It's almost as bad as the NIV.

K.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by Kapyong]

Just a quick reminder -

The Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the bible.
They did not discuss the subject at all.

But many people on his site believe they did.
Even when shown the facts.
It's very odd.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by cjcord

 

The (Authorized) 1611 King James Bible is the Bible - it is the only one that is authorized to be called "The Bible".

In fact, the KJV is one of the WORST translations of all time - it was done from a poor set of late manuscripts and abounds in errors.

It's almost as bad as the NIV.

Well, if I may, I would beg to differ, just a little.

The 1611 King James Bible is the Best reference source "Biblically Speaking" due to Dr Strong, and the Exhaustive Work that bears his name,
The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, which from a Study poinnt of View, allows the Reader of the 1611 to actually know what the exact word was that the English replaced.

We have some Concordances, or Lexicon that are no quite as exact as Dr Strong's work was, is, or will ever be.

NO OTHER BIBLE, has this tool done to the extent of The Strong's.

Many have tried, all have failed in my Humble Opinion

I will concure, that yes, there are errors in the 1611 KJV.

But, I can know these errors, and realize what the true message was that was Hidden or Veiled by the Translators.

And do not be mistaken

The Jolly King James was a MASON, and was a person that would have influence over many things, including translation. Proof of this? None. Possible? Certainly.

That is also why there is a letter written in the 1611 Bible from the Translator to the Reader (You). If would be a benefit if possible, to review these notes.

Anyways, Here's a link to MY Online Bible, AN Authorized Edition, with all the missing reference material in the Begining. This will lead to the Main Index.

Sorry, but you need to spend your own coin to buy a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, but it is well worth it

Ciao

Shane

The Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611

Read this page. It has instructions!!!

Gday,

Originally posted by Shane
The 1611 King James Bible is the Best reference source "Biblically Speaking" due to Dr Strong, and the Exhaustive Work that bears his name,

What?

That has NOTHING o do with how accurate the KJV is at all.
Strong's is a reference work to a POOR translation.
That does NOT make the KJV a good translation at all.
Can you explain why YOU think it does?

The KJV was translated from a small set of late manuscripts, and is now considered one of the very worst translations of all. Modern translations are based on a much larger set of much better mss.

But faithful believers are the last to know this fact.

Some errors with the KJV can be found here :
www.angelfire.com...
www.bible.ca...




K.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Kapyong


Hi Kapyong.

I'm aware now About them not choosing any books.

But I still do not agree with you on the facts. The sources you gave me are not convincing me they are absolutly trustworthy.

I now believe you are right because of my own sources.

Anyway. What is your relation with religion ? If I may ask.

Originally posted by Kapyong
That has NOTHING o do with how accurate the KJV is at all.
Strong's is a reference work to a POOR translation.
That does NOT make the KJV a good translation at all.
Can you explain why YOU think it does?

Why yes. Strong's is a Reference Work to a poor translation, The 1611 King James Bible.

But the Strong's IS THE BEST REFERENCE WORK, and unfortunately is based solely upon the 1611 King James Bible.

Now here's the thing my friend.

If you can not at least make the effort to STUDY, then you may as well take someone elses word for it. Sure, take your pick of any other Bible. I'll take the Best Reference over the Best Interpetation anyday. It affords me at the worst, a tool to verify, if not see the errors.

And do not mistake my comments earlier. I know the 1611 is not for everyone. In General, when it comes to scripture, people do not even open their Bibles. They just listen to the Wolves in the Pulpits leading them astray.

Here's a question for you.

How many Bibles have anything like this noted for the second verse of Genesis 1

Genesis 1:2 And the earth became a waste and a desolation.......

I can assure you, I can know this from USE of a 1611 and a Strong's Concordance.

I can assure you, the worldly god of Science will confirm it as a testament to the Original Texts and the WORD of GOD.

I can assure you, STUDY, makes each and every mistake or overlooked or twisted scripture easy to see, and place it in proper context.

I can assure you, this takes time, and effort, and is not simple. It is work.

But nothing is worth having if you didn't work for it!

Ciao

Shane

Gday,

Originally posted by cjcord
Canonical books were debated for many years and finalized at the council of TRENT, not Nicea.

Rubbish.

The canon formed by late 4th century.
Trent was over a THOUSAND YEARS later !

All they did was formalise the canon had been fixed for a MILLENIUM by then. The bible books did NOT change after the 5th century.

Why doesn't anyone here ever check the bloody facts ?


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Shane
Why yes. Strong's is a Reference Work to a poor translation, The 1611 King James Bible.

Yup, like I said -
the KJV is a very bad translation.

Originally posted by Shane
But the Strong's IS THE BEST REFERENCE WORK, and unfortunately is based solely upon the 1611 King James Bible.

Yup, a great reference work to a BAD translation.
Glad you agree.


K.