It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Which Bible?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:24 AM
Thanx shihulud. But that does IMO, fall somewhat short of my original question. What is the bible?

Your explanation of the New Testament and what it's about, is correct. As a christian by definition, I have always considered it to irrevelent.

IMO it [the NT] has nothing really to do with the bible. I know that people will be up in arms over that statement, but it is my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, the bible is the Old Testament together with all the sex, viloence and death. That's what happens in the real world, not all the luvvy-dovey stuff.

What traditionists like me want, is all the Fire and Brimstone we can get. All catholics want is purgetory and the eternal flames of damnation.

What more could we ask for?

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:07 PM
Only one problem here ....witht the Olde Testament. IN the Olde Testament God tells us that he will make a change in the testament...the promise..the covenant. He states he will make a people His people who are not His people. Then when it happens we see people trying to say it didnt happen..we must return back to the system that was...and reject all that we were taught in the new system. If this is so than why was the olde system done away with for God's purposes. Why the events in 70AD?? Why the Disapora?? Why the chaos which is happening today.?? Especially in the land people claim is the Holy Land...a land obviously made with men.

When you listen to Olde Testament peoples..closely ..they deny the Olde Testament and also the New Testament...they want to replace the Word of God with the word of men.
To show you how far this has come today ..the traditions are not only to deny the Olde Testament but to also put people under the Olde Testament Bondage and if they were the New Testament. I happen to know that this is a counterfit... and also the name of the counterfitter.
The man made tradition/counterfit in the Olde Testament is that the Hebrew leadership was in the buisness of substituting the Word of God with man made traditions/practices and passing this off to a unawares people as if it was the Word/practices of God. A counterfit. The Hebrews were punnished for this over and over...finally winding up in thier disapora in 70 ad for disobedience.
I also know that most Believers today are following this same pattern ..unawares were the Hebrews of Olde Testament times. They dont have a clue...and the Christian leaders are not teaching them the difference..for the sake of Mammon.
When you read the Word from the position of counterfits..and hidden becomes obvious....both Olde and New Testaments.
Though the Hebrews were blessed over and over in the Olde Testament they were also warned over and over by the Prophets to stop doing the traditions of men...which they learned from the nations whichsurrounding Israel and contrary to Gods instruction to not do what the nations surrounding them did. They often killed the Prophets sent by God and continued on thier merry way.
This knowlege is also why you have so many different versions conceal this fact of what the Hebrews were doing and also the traditions and customs of the nations surrounding Israel. If you know this pattern you can look at Christianity today and see them doing the same pattern...Following the traditions of men and replacing the Word of God with the traditions/customs of men. Many preachers today..just as was the Hebrew leadership.. are involved in this misdirecton. It is not a new phenomonon.


posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:14 AM
So sorry Orangetom but I don't really understand what you are getting at.

Not your point of view, but that way it has been written.

I always use double spaces so that the half blind people like me can see what has been posted.

It also helps differentiate between new paragraphs and continuation of sentances.............something that few posters bother with.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:27 AM
You posted that as far as you were concerned the bible was the olde testament.

Problem...the olde testament declares that God will make a change in his testament ..due to the stiff neckedness and rebellion of the Hebrew people. He will make a people His people who were not His people.

Then when it happens...oh no...we have to use the olde testament. So many deny the olde testament then also deny the new testament but seem unware of this.

The Bible is a record of God dealing with His people..His chosen ..His elect..both in the olde testament and the new testament. A record of how He chose to deal with them and also why He chose to deal with them in this manner.

These are my points.


posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:31 AM
What is a Testament ...historically???

A last Will and Testament.

What is known historically about a last will and testament is that in order for the testament to go into effect the testator must die. This is the key in knowing when a testament goes into effect.

The testator can change thier will and testament as much as they want as long as the testator lives. The testament that goes into effect is the last will and testament ..when the testator dies.

Who is the testator who died for the Olde Testament???? This is very telling once it is explained to people who can think it through concerning the significance of the olde and new testaments.


posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:26 PM
Testament - Literal meaning – Proof of

Old Testament: One of the two main parts of the Christian Bible, which records the history of the Jewish people before the birth of Christ.

New Testament: The second of the two main parts of the Bible, containing the books written after the birth of Jesus Christ:

Nothing to do with wills and testaments in this scenario, but I do take your point.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:08 PM
I believe you have hit on the problem. I especially enjoyed reading those who choose the KJV from the multitude of translations. It points out that the KJN crown consistently know very little about their religion and its many sects and misconceptions.
The KJV represents a prime example of adjusting religious dogma to satisfy prevailing political pressure. The KJV represents almost no new scholarship. It is a good example of an onsequious attempt to molly-coddle current social pressures and then name the week effort in honoir of some inbread potentate who most assurredly never read the drivel. The scholarly works from which the KJV is an obvious and pathetic plagiarization , the work of two genuime scholars, and I would list them but I believe that the KJV crowd should have to spend at least 20 minutes on actual discovery of the work they rediculously claim is (as absurd as it sounds) the "inerrant" word o god, were ground breaking scholarly works under pain of a deathwarrant (for the New Testament translator) set by the then Pope.
Christians, espcially, know almost nothing of the original work that started the entire Judeo/Christian/Moslem versions of religion in the first place. This information is there for the asking but most true believers would rather be spoon-fed poppy-cock rather than exert a bit of effort and actually learn something.
KJV my butt! Pathetic, really but sooo typical.
The answer is, whatever man says is the word of the word of god, short n simple. The creator always gets to say what the truth is, even when it contradicts itself blatantly as it constantly does in the bible, especially the KJV!
Humans suffer from a malady well ingrained in our psyche. We will fall out trying to kill each other over the slightest difference in opinion (we see this every day) all the while not having the slightest clue what the hell any of us are talking about but assurred by our own ignorance that the other fellow is wrong and must be dealt with.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:48 PM
skep, you hit it right on the head....

The answer is, whatever man says is the word of the word of god, short n simple.

Man wrote the whole thing! Idiots like king james re-wrote it (do a google on king james before you flame me).
God never reached down from heaven and wrote anything in it.
The original would have been an awesome historical work, I still would like to read that version!
The key word is "version" in simple terms it implies a "change",,,,
If you believe the original was the word of God, why would you want to read the changed version? And why would you believe it?

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:35 AM
Testament: Will


posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:43 AM
I am trying to figure out what you are saying. I hear alot of rambling on and on and on and on ..just not much facts presented here. Mostly your opinion.
Do you have any sources outside your opinion. You know...stuff like Adamanteus Originese, Philo, Eusebius, or even Thomas Aquinas.
Its just that I hear alot of personal opinion in your posts just not alot of facts. Can you round this out for us??


posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 06:07 PM
I guess that all bets are off and all arguments are null and void with the discovery of the Gospel of Judas Iscariot.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by df1
It seems that we have many Words of God just within the christain faith without the need to consider any other religions.

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
New Life Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
Wycliffe New Testament
Worldwide English (New Testament)
New International Version

This list is not all inclusive, so feel free to add your own personal choice.

Are all of these bibles the Word of God?

Is one bible more the Word of God than another?

Are some of these bibles the work of the devil?

Will a christian go to hell for using the bible?

Is this poster sincere? I mean no offence, but the question is a very strange one, surely? I do not understand how the existence of many translations of a text bear on the questions made?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:08 PM
I agree, but surely these new revalations about the Gospels According to Judas Iscariot bring some doubt to the Bible?

I for one cannot wait for the whole Gospel to be translated and the results published.

What next? The Gospel According to Mary Magdelaene? I do hope so! That would really upset the Orthodox churches!

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in