The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

reply to post by tetra50


I appreciate and respect your intel just the same Tetra. I took no offense at anything you said so get over it.
You're obviously a member worth respect. I'm trying not to get to sappy here ok .

Originally posted by Evanzsayz

Originally posted by Boomer1941

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by randyvs

 

The bible has not changed, I have a bible that is from the early 1800's and it is exactly the same as my bible that was published in 1980 so nice try

I'd say you're a little behind the times...lol Have you heard of The Vulgate?

I just love it when people say "The Word of God"....lol

Nope never heard of it, never said the word of god either.

If you've never heard of the Vulgate perhaps you should do a little research.

Originally posted by RedGod

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by superman2012

 

Jesus never killed.

He was sinless. He never broke any of the 613 laws.

The Bible has little account of Jesus after his birth, until He turned water to wine at a wedding, when He was 21.

The only exception was when He got left behind at the Temple in Jerusalem when He was 12 and was found explaining the scriptures to the amazed Rabbi's there.

No account at all of Him doing anything else as a child.

edit on 28/11/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Why is it that all that time was left out?

Could it be he did some things, like sins, that he wasn't so very proud of?

I suspect that the omitted time was because; little happened during that period that was pertinent to His mission (which was to establish Gods Kingdom, on Earth, in our hearts).

When He was pushed (by His mother) to "do something" at the wedding in Cana, He said "My time has not yet come". It would appear that He was aware of when His mission was to commence.

If Jesus had sinned, He would have died for His own sins and His death, in our terms, would be meaningless. Ditto if He was merely a human philosopher/moralist/teacher.

If He was God incarnate and was sinless, then, and only then, could He suffer in our place by proxy and in taking upon himself our punishment, absolve us of the sin.

There is a similar concept in western law called "double jeopardy" where you cannot convict & punish someone and then convict and punish another for exactly the same instance of infraction. It must be a different instance of wrongdoing to be able to convict.

It was essential to His mission and ministry that He be sinless, fully human and fully God.

Originally posted by beanandginger
The whole concept of the Bible and attending church or mass was designed to provide three things.

1. A litmus test for TPTB to tell who “the sheep” are and more importantly who is not a sheep that needs to be “dealt with”.
2. A means of controlling the sheep
3. A means of tracking the financial prosperity of the sheep and soliciting a portion of their earnings.

The apostles or Nicaean creed was / is the litmus test – you have to publicly profess that you believe in the “official church doctrine”. It’s a simple method of indoctrination that has been carried out for the last 2000 years.

The Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy books are all versions of the same texts of the Old Testament largely attributed to being written by Moses in around 1300 BCE. This was also around the time people we writing things down at all – as apposed to chiseling them into stone. No wonder they came to be thought of as sacred. Unfortunately they are no more sacred than todays newspapers. They are merely a collection of books, poems songs, etc that record some historical events, fables as well as some “life lessons / parables / guidelines” for how one should react in given situations.

The church and religion as a whole is a control device – the scam of all scams.

BINGO! There are really alot of questions surrounding Moses...lol

Has anyone read the works of Tony Bushby? Bushby and his staff have done extensive research into Biblical History and Religion and have come up with some remarkable claims, while I personally find some of these claims difficult to digest, his work remains fascinating.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by randyvs

 

Ok, how about the Council of Nicaea? or Rather than seen as a threat to Christianity, pagan holidays and customs came to be viewed as a way to encourage and ease conversion to Christianity. or many inconsistencies in the new testament. or new testament add-ons.

OP, thank you for putting this post up. I am gaining a LOT out of it and needed a thread just like this.

Superman, thanks for the links. There is a lot in the "New Testament Contradictions" link that I wasn't aware of and found very interesting. There was also some things that I am already aware of, that I was surprised "not" to see in there. For instance, Jesus died on the cross in different ways in some gospels. He was also crucified for different charges in the gospels.

I haven't gotten through reading all the threads yet because there is so much here, and then I get side tracked when I pick up stuff like what you included to read, so it is taking a while. I did notice OP said he would look through your links later, but I am only at page 4 right now, but I hope he came back to comment on what you supplied. I think it is important to see arguments from both sides so I can learn as much as possible. A lot of folks seem to just want to give their thoughts rather than provide examples or proof like OP asked, but I think this is the type of information he asked for, and I know that I am definitely after, so thank you!

reply to post by Hydroman


Completely off topic here but...dig the avatar.

Really, that's all I have. Sorry mods.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by superman2012

 

As for texts being hidden for some reason. Yes, ancient documents that are handled, crumble to dust in a very short time, so conservators lock them away from harmful influences. Yet libraries (like the Vatican Library www.vaticanlibrary.va... or the Dead Sea Scrolls) are increasingly being put online and are NOT being hidden.

Wow I couldn't help but step in on this one. If you are utilizing the Vatican as your support for argument for ANYTHING, then what you are saying can't be credible at all. The Vatican has more secrets, and more skeletons in their closet, than probably ANY known society on the planet. You are aware of the monstrous number of priests that were raping little boys all over the world and covering it up right?? Still till this day no less. There are still priests in the organization that are known pedophiles! I would rather know what is actually inside the Vatican than any place on this planet, including ALL of Washington's secrets!!! There is stuff hidden in there that we haven't even wrapped our minds around yet. I think you might want to do some homework on what really goes on in there before you use that as an argument for things NOT being hidden. They can't even protect some of their popes from "suddenly" dying and that is your basis for argument?? Wow! Please do some homework on it before you accept things as blind faith.

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by superman2012

 

As for texts being hidden for some reason. Yes, ancient documents that are handled, crumble to dust in a very short time, so conservators lock them away from harmful influences. Yet libraries (like the Vatican Library www.vaticanlibrary.va... or the Dead Sea Scrolls) are increasingly being put online and are NOT being hidden.

Wow I couldn't help but step in on this one. If you are utilizing the Vatican as your support for argument for ANYTHING, then what you are saying can't be credible at all. The Vatican has more secrets, and more skeletons in their closet, than probably ANY known society on the planet. You are aware of the monstrous number of priests that were raping little boys all over the world and covering it up right?? Still till this day no less. There are still priests in the organization that are known pedophiles! I would rather know what is actually inside the Vatican than any place on this planet, including ALL of Washington's secrets!!! There is stuff hidden in there that we haven't even wrapped our minds around yet. I think you might want to do some homework on what really goes on in there before you use that as an argument for things NOT being hidden. They can't even protect some of their popes from "suddenly" dying and that is your basis for argument?? Wow! Please do some homework on it before you accept things as blind faith.

I believe I was replying to the charge that the owners of these ancient documents keep them secret.

Just pointing out the reason that we have not had access in the past and that the situation is changing.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
I would not call him an idiot, perhaps severely misguided. You have to understand that people like randyvs have been conditioned to think this way. Indoctrinated in to playing along in to this great scam. But more so it does not bode well with him or those of his ilk when they have to question everything else. If you force these people too hard to awaken it can be quite traumatic for them. They have to do the work themselves and awaken on their own.

I am very curious as to what your take is on "awake" in the context you provided. Does awake mean the realization that "religion" is false? Is awaken mean that God doesn't actually exist? Or that Jesus doesn't actually exist? Is spirituality (different from religious) completely false?

The term "awake" is used in so many different circles now, that it has become difficult to understand exactly what one means by this. Religious people use the term for those who are religiously enlightened. Folks that believe in UFO/ET use the word awake to describe folks that believe in just that theory. There are people that use it for people that believe in Illuminati and/or NWO also, but don't believe in religion or UFO's (false flags). Some people can believe in one of these areas and slightly touch on other areas, meaning you can believe NWO and UFO's are actually coming, or you can be religious and thing Satan is behind NWO and UFO's are fallen angels and/or demons, but nobody's use of this word seems to be the same. I find it humorous when people claim they are awake, and how someone else needs to wake up, but wake up to what exactly, the reality of the person using the term?

Not giving you a hard time at all, just curious what exactly your take on "Awake" means is all.

Thanks!

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by milkyway12

 

I have never met an atheist who preaches about the end of the world.

Not sure what sites you are hanging out on, but you might want to get out more often to some other sites then. I have seen tons and tons of posts from people who are atheist, and are absolutely convinced NWO is coming and about to wipe out 5.5 million or so people. Many of these people have openly stated they aren't religious, but are certain NWO happening, behind the scenes right now, and think it is happening soon. I have also seen plenty of people that are atheist that believe there is an ET war going on, and they are about to blow up the planet.

It's out there, you can find it if you really want to see it. This just sounded like a biased, non factual, anti-religious statement to me.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
The bible has been changed many times by kings and corrupt biblical authorities over the years to better control the populace. This is actually well documented.

. . .

And yet you fail to provide the proof?

The Tanakh has pretty much gone unchanged for a few thousand years.

Please see Dead Sea Scrolls.

As for the B'rit Hadasha . . .

There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament.

The New Testament was written from about A.D. 50 to A.D. 90. The earliest fragment (p. 52) dates about A.D. 120, with about fifty other fragments dating within 150–200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.

F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning."

He also states, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:

"The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established" (The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).

No matter how much you wish it to be so, the scriptures that we have now are pretty damn accurate to the originals.

Also, don't forget about the Pesh itta; (had to space it so it wouldnt block the word)

The Pe#ta had from the 5th century onward a wide circulation in the East, and was accepted and honored by all the numerous sects of the greatly divided Syriac Christianity. It had a great missionary influence, and the Armenian and Georgian versions, as well as the Arabic and the Persian, owe not a little to the Syriac. The famous Nestorian tablet of Sing-an-fu witnesses to the presence of the Syriac Scriptures in the heart of China in the 7th century. It was first brought to the West by Moses of Mindin, a noted Syrian ecclesiastic, who sought a patron for the work of printing it in vain in Rome and Venice, but found one in the Imperial Chancellor at Vienna in 1555—Albert Widmanstadt. He undertook the printing of the New Testament, and the emperor bore the cost of the special types which had to be cast for its issue in Syriac. Immanuel Tremellius, the converted Jew whose scholarship was so valuable to the English reformers and divines, made use of it, and in 1569 issued a Syriac New Testament in Hebrew letters. In 1645 the editio princeps of the Old Testament was prepared by Gabriel Sionita for the Paris Polyglot, and in 1657 the whole Pe#ta found a place in Walton's London Polyglot. For long the best edition of the Pe#ta was that of John Leusden and Karl Schaaf, and it is still quoted under the symbol Syrschaaf, or SyrSch. The critical edition of the Gospels recently issued by Mr. G. H. Gwilliam at the Clarendon Press is based upon some 50 manuscripts. Considering the revival of Syriac scholarship, and the large company of workers engaged in this field, we may expect further contributions of a similar character to a new and complete critical edition of the Pe#ta.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Awoken4Ever


Well I'm with you as far as those being solid links. Superman has been a welcome nemesis here for sure.
Along with most everyone. I'm enjoying the way this thread has worked out emensely. Somehow it seems
to be good for both siders. I think as Tetra put it." Whew " that was close.I missed x's post. Wonder what his problem was but forget it. I don't want to know.

The Bible has been changed many times. First by the Jews who collected many ideas from their various sects and decided what to actually put in it. Next under the great emperor Constantine who chose ideas from Judaism to unite his people under a common faith. The ideas were chosen which would create structure in the lives of the Romans while still keeping the current hierarichal structure in tact thus we have the Christian bible. And the last major change was by King James thus we have the King James Bible.

reply to post by cardicorona


You should know what this thread is about easily. At least some links to your proof my fellow member.
That which you have mentioned belongs to catholicism. I've already stated my stance on that. Clearly a church
that doesn't follow the teachings of Christ.

reply to post by randyvs


My point was that no one knows what the actual teachings of Christ were because after 2000 years they have been skewed and warped in so many ways to fit the needs of the times and the desires of powerful individuals.

reply to post by randyvs


Randy, I think this is the best post I have come across since I have been here at ATS. I must have spent 8 hours reading last night through posts, and all the side stuff linked off it, and I am only at page 14 now, and that isn't even mentioning all the videos I have put aside to watch so far. Looking forward to getting up to speed soon. I can say that I am a fence sitter on the topic and religion as a whole. Neither argument has pushed me in either direction, and I can completely relate and identify with both sides at times. Some of the threads have had me blown away by what I am learning, others have been just a waste of time. I will give my recap of a fence sitter when I finish reading all the posts. I am very grateful this post went up, and so many folks have stepped up and discussed their argument. I have gained great respect for some of those people through their posts who sit on both sides of the fence.

The video you linked to of Chris White I didn't even catch until later it was his. Chris has done some pretty incredible work, and it is very difficult to find anything out there at all posted or argued against him. I am very familiar with a lot of his work, and have even spoke with him. He is a pretty amazing guy to say the least, even if we don't see completely eye to eye on everything. I even put a post up on this site talking about him directly, and didn't get anything negative back as a result of it. In today's day and age with technology, says a lot about your character when their is nothing to debunk your own work, or nothing major coming back negative about him in my research. Of course you will get the anti-religious folks to say something bad about him here or there, but that is to be expected. However, none of those folks have debunked him from what I have seen. It's funny because him and SuperiorEd have the same kind of philosophy and thinking I find often. Ed is someone else who I have made a habit of following around to read his stuff. I might not be religious, but both these guys have a lot to offer if you really are seeking knowledge IMO.

Looking forward to the finish line tonight

reply to post by Hydroman

in the old days of kings, a king would say "we" when speaking of himself. It was a way to show majesty.

I had some discussion here at home over the usage of the word "we" in such a way. Although I disagree with this being a correct way to use the word, I have my own theory as to the reason why it was used like that, I understand your point. However there is a great disconnect of time over the use of "we" as meaning 'I', in your example, as compared to the use of 'elohiym as meaning 'elowahh (plural vs. singular). How many centuries have passed between these two time periods? How many centuries have passed before the English language was even spoken?

It is quite fair in my opinion to accept that the meaning is as it is translated and defined by Strong's concordence, i.e. gods/godesses. If you feel that this is not the case then the onus would be on you to prove otherwise.