Pope Francis thinks he has authority to change what Christ said in the Gospels.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

he wanted people to see

hahahaha - and yet you said eyes don't see - are you an AI?
You really should stop creating your own nonsense language.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Eyes balls don't see.
What is seeing will never be seen.
What is hearing will never be heard.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Do you really believe that an eye ball can see?

a reply to: Thorneblood

Bill Clinton is a rapist.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: intrptr

Are you seeing now?

Seeing what, the truth the bible is written by men, is changed over time by TPTB to reflect their agenda?

You see it too, right?

I don't give two hoots about what any book says. I don't care what it is you are seeing.

Are you seeing? When are you seeing? Are you seeing now? These words here - are they seen?
Is this question really that difficult?

There are two kinds of seeing, with eyeballs and the minds eye.

Eye balls do not see.
Take an eye ball out of a dead persons head - does it see? Rip one of your eye balls out and give it to someone and get them to drive it across town - is that eye ball seeing?

You're blind.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: intrptr

Are you seeing now?

Seeing what, the truth the bible is written by men, is changed over time by TPTB to reflect their agenda?

You see it too, right?

I don't give two hoots about what any book says. I don't care what it is you are seeing.

Are you seeing? When are you seeing? Are you seeing now? These words here - are they seen?
Is this question really that difficult?

There are two kinds of seeing, with eyeballs and the minds eye.

Eye balls do not see.
Take an eye ball out of a dead persons head - does it see? Rip one of your eye balls out and give it to someone and get them to drive it across town - is that eye ball seeing?

You're blind.

How so? What has brought you to this conclusion?

a reply to: intrptr
You're blind is a strange answer to:

Rip one of your eye balls out and give it to someone and get them to drive it across town - is that eye ball seeing?

Why not answer the question?

This Pope is the anti Pope. He's a complete piece of human waste.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I was going to post this, but after sifting through this whole thread, this pretty well sums it up...

Are you sure he does not just want to make it easier for people to understand, ...

That's precisely what it is. However, there is something troubling about it; two things actually.

1. It assumes people, modern people, are simply incapable of reading and understanding in context (at all).

2. It assumes people will not read/understand the verse which follows, "But deliver us from evil."

This effort by the pope isn't as much about 'changing' something as it is about 'dumbing' something down...for today's "dumb" society, a society too selfish, lazy and fragile to take the time to actually "understand" something. Soooooooo, in an effort to keep people showing up, to keep people throwing money in the tithe basket, to keep people from becoming 'offended' by something, let's just dumb it down so they can understand it in the context of their own self-absorbed fail-book universe. Frankly, it seems like pandering to me, but what do I know...or care, for that matter?

It just strikes me as a conflict of sorts. People are lead to believe we live in the most intelligent and advanced society in the history of mankind...and yet we constantly have to dumb things down, make things politically correct so their wittle feewings don't get hurted. Technology may have advanced, science may have advanced, but society as a whole has actualy REGRESSED in terms of mental bandwidth!

That's my .02 on the matter.

a reply to: Revolution9

How can you know it is not a translation, unless you can speak and read the Greek language familiar to the period, as well as the latin familiar to the period?

a reply to: Revolution9 Do you say "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever" at the end of the Our Father? If so, you should know that wasn't in the earliest texts and is now considered a later addition.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The bible is a collection of approved narratives - approved by man. I don't give a stuff who changes them.

Who was this man?

What was his name and credentials?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Revolution9

How can you know it is not a translation, unless you can speak and read the Greek language familiar to the period, as well as the latin familiar to the period?

If it is in English, it must be a translation.

They actually mainly spoke in a dialect of Aramaic, but the language of the earliest written gospels was Koine Greek. Latin only happened later. Parodoxically, the oldest complete manuscripts used by the early church were translated into Latin (there are artifacts of language that indicate it was a translation from Greek).

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I believe no meaningful conversation can be had with you

EDIT I know for a fact words only matter to you when its suits you.

you were able to make a meaningful 3 sentence intro paragraph in your thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I believe no meaningful conversation can be had with you

It would be but if you refuse to answer a simple question then of course discussion does not happen.
Do you believe that an eye ball can see?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Revolution9

But what does it say in Aramaic? Or in Hebrew?

Translations are always a bit skewed, there's sometimes words/ideas and such that doesn't translate directly.

The Bible was translated into greek from biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. Then the greek version was translated to english. So every english version relies on the latin translation of the bible. To make matters worse the bible was translated into old english where meanings of words have changed. So unless you read hebrew and aramaic and happen to have a copy of the dead sea scrolls your reading someones interpretation.

Exactly! We had western people translating an Aramaic (Eastern) text, they did what they thought was correct, but didn't understand the culture it came from.

If you really want some great insight to this, read "Prayers of the Cosmos" and "The Hidden Gospels" by Neil Douglas-Klotz.
Aramaic was an old Eastern Language built on sounds and meaning put together into words that fit the culture, the translators had no idea, that's why there is such clumsy wording in the Lords Prayer and especially the Beatitudes. There were parts they just didn't know what to do with.

Not their fault, because Western thinking is very different from Eastern, but great insights in the books. For me it was like blowing 2000 years of dust and crud off a painting to see what it actually looks like, the prayers are very beautiful and clear the way Jesus probably spoke them!

Jesus didn't give The Lord's Prayer to be repeated over and over again anyway. He said pray in this MANNER, not repeat the exact words over again like a robot.

Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Jesus didn't give The Lord's Prayer to be repeated over and over again anyway. He said pray in this MANNER, not repeat the exact words over again like a robot.

Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

a reply to: lightofgratitude

Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Prayer originally used to be silent, it was not about talking to God, it was about joining with God, and being One with him and experiencing his love.

a reply to: Revolution9

The Bible is open to interpretation, that is why there are so many "versions". I'm a King James fan myself. Think it sounds better with thees and thous. Not sure about your argument though. You just argued that the Pope shouldn't change the wording, but used as your reference, a Bible with changed wording.

The Pope, and the Roman Catholic church, have a history of changing things in the Bible to suit their agenda. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy ring a bell? That was Saturday until the Pope changed it. At least this Pope, one of the coolest imo, wants the change because he wants to show God in a better light. I can't fault him for that.