It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Politics and religion;-- The dividing of Solomon's kingdom

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage

It matters when it comes to believing the word of God. And believing that God preserved his words to every generation forever as he promised in Psalm 12:6, 7.

If you had the preserved word of God you would not have to go to the Religious Elites special perversions of the Holy Bible.

By quoting those versions you show your unbelief that God is powerful enough to keep his word.




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I think the King James is out of the ten best English bibles no better than 5th or 6th best.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage
I don't remember anyone mentioning the KJV anywhere so that reply tells me who you really are.

Gnosisisfaith, your opinion means nothing seeing you are not a Bible believer anyway.

And again for the umpteenth time. You are not a believer in God being powerful enough to keep his word to preserve his words to every generation for ever. And that there is a preserved Bible to trust and hold in your hand.
edit on 21-8-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Woodcarver
In your interpretation, does that prove to you that there were other gods just as powerful as yahweh? Solomon clearly believed they were either as strong or stronger.

No, it proves only, as you say, that he thought they existed.
The fact that people buy fake Rolex watches, believing them to be genuine, doesn't prove them to be genuine.
Well then, you're cherry picking as usual.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Only King James only people care about versions, it's a logical deduction and I guess I was right.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage

No, I am adamant about God keeping his word to preserve his word himself as promised. You don't believe that and so if God could not do it then there is no Bible we can trust and we should not follow God. Because he is weak and unable to even save.

Those other Bibles are creations since 1830 that are part of the Religious Elite who have taken over Christianity and control it. They to don't believe God could preserve his words.

The Authorized Bible is the only one with all the verse, the only one with a divine built in Cross reference system and can define any word in it by the context.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Then you should learn Hebrew.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


I am not wanting to derail or distract from the thread but I've seen you use three different Bibles to quote from in various threads I am very interested to hear your reason for it.

I use BibleHub to get quotes from. I try to use WEB (World English Bible) because

The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible. That means that you may freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. The World English Bible is based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament.
worldenglishbible.org

I really liked the 1901, read it more than RSV, then I got a first edition 1971 New American Standard Bible. The feature I liked was that the poetic passages were written in poetry verse format. The New English had that feature too, but I didn't like that version much. My current Giant Print for weaker eyes is NIV.

WEB is far down on the list of choices on biblehub, so when I'm too lazy to scroll down, I quote NIV because it's at the top of the list. NASB I quote for the poetry effect.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage

why there are no Hebrew copies of the Bible that can be verified to be accurate because there is no original autograph I could compare it to.

Or Greek.

Or Latin

Or Syriac

ECT. ECT. ECT.

That is why God preserved his word to this generation in one Bible that has all the verses, defines the words in them by their context and has supernatural built in cross reference system that can only be seen and used if someone reads the Bible so many times they are familiar with its entirety that is when it is seen and can be utilized.

He did and I have it in my hand just as he originally inspired it in Hebrew and Greek in times past but today in English.


edit on 21-8-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic and Hebrew.

Your so called av is based off the Masoretic texts and if they aren't reliable like you said...

Neither is the av.

edit on 21-8-2016 by enterthestage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Now if you learned Hebrew you could compare the Masoretic texts of today and find out if they are reliable, which they are somewhat.

The Vulgate and Septuagint are better.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage

I learned Hebrew in College I know Hebrew. But like I said all copies are unverifiable.

So either God is powerful enough to preserve his word to our generation or he is a God not worth following



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic and Hebrew.

Your so called av is based off the Masoretic texts and if they aren't reliable like you said...

Neither is the av.


There is your problem you believe it is just written by men but in fat his word is inspired by God himself.

So again he either preserved it or he didn't



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic and Hebrew.

Your so called av is based off the Masoretic texts and if they aren't reliable like you said...

Neither is the av.


There is your problem you believe it is just written by men but in fat his word is inspired by God himself.

So again he either preserved it or he didn't


Oh I don't have a problem, you say you know my problem but it's mere rhetoric like most of what you say.

I have problems like everyone else but the Bible is not my problem. I am actually quite blessed. The Most High and the Spirit and Logos have given me an awesome life and I am most grateful.😂



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: enterthestage

I learned Hebrew in College I know Hebrew. But like I said all copies are unverifiable.


The same applies to the King James as it's based off those "unverifiable" Masoretic texts. How do you not get that?

If you knew Hebrew you could verify the Hebrew Tanakh in Hebrew and find out if it is properly translated. If it's the same as the KJ then it's reliable.



So either God is powerful enough to preserve his word to our generation or he is a God not worth following



You dodged my mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls where whole books or at least parts of every (-- Esther + Enoch, Jubilees) Tanakh book were found untouched for 2000 years.

If that is not preserved then nothing is because not only do they agree mostly with the Septuagint, they also settle Masoretic vs. Septuagint disagreements that we previously had no way of resolving.

The Septuagint is more accurate to the original Hebrew scriptures than is the Masoretic that your KJ is based off. It's not the best or most accurate version it's just YOUR favorite.

Which bothers nobody. But you trash the word of God if it is not from the in need of revision KJV and like nobody else call it the "Authorized Version."

Authorized by King James is what that is supposed to mean and he was not too bright to begin with. It's also meant to make it seem like the one true Bible and it's not even the best. Anything Masoretic based is inferior to the original Hebrew and Greek which were excellent. The Masorah subtley altered much in translating it back to Hebrew.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage
What many fail to see is it doesn't matter which text men may have had when they made their translation what matters is that God was behind the AV to preserve his words ALL OF THEM. ALL newer translations do not have all the verses, All of the newer translations remove not only verses but words, and change words, and therefore the meaning of the text.

Once again you either believe God has done what he says and preserved his word as he promised to do in Psalm 12:6. 7 and therefore there is a Bible today with all the verses, defines every word and cross references those words. the only Bible to do that is the AV

If God didn't do that then NO ONE should follow him because if he cannot preserve his words how can he save us?



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage

Blessed is that why ATS keeps banning you after what is it now approaching 60 or so ATS accounts?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join