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.

 

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 
OhZone, I have spent the better part of 50 or more posts trying to seperate the 2, and all I got was called a "jew Hater", anti-semitic, when I said the same thing you just did about the jewish people and the zionists. Welcome to my world!





posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewind

 
Satan, lucifer are different characters? You don't know your bible then! God refers to satan with many names! Satan, lucifer, the son of perdition, that ole serpent, the "God" of this world, that old devil, take your pick!




I know it well enough to say this is a common but incorrect assumption of some Christian sects wanting to equate the two. Serious biblical scholars going back to the source material have noted the difference"

Explained here in full:

www.apologeticspress.org...





" The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)...

However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate.

... Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. "




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Cool mmichael, so now you have offered up another translation? Wow, just another name to call satan then isn't it?? Now, you want some cheese to go with your whine now? Lucifer, satan, depending on the author and text, has many different names. You first cited biblical reference, and now you're wanting to utilize an "apologetics" format?? You don't need to apologise to me for anything, for I knew your agenda towards me was nothing but to antagonize me and try to belittle me in this thread. You have done nothing positive in this entire thread but attack me and anybody else who doesn't agree with you. May I suggest that you go to a chatroom or something for that kind of rhetoric and leave the intelligent discussions to the adults please.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thewind
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Cool mmichael, so now you have offered up another translation? Wow, just another name to call satan then isn't it?? Now, you want some cheese to go with your whine now? Lucifer, satan, depending on the author and text, has many different names. You first cited biblical reference, and now you're wanting to utilize an "apologetics" format?? You don't need to apologise to me for anything, for I knew your agenda towards me was nothing but to antagonize me and try to belittle me in this thread. You have done nothing positive in this entire thread but attack me and anybody else who doesn't agree with you. May I suggest that you go to a chatroom or something for that kind of rhetoric and leave the intelligent discussions to the adults please.



It's apparent you didn't read the page I linked to, explaining why there is controversy over the equating of Satan and Lucifer stemming from to the translation of the King James Bible.

Do not continue to accuse me of whining. I could throw much stronger accusations back at you. We are supposed to focus on the points under discussion not the other members.

I disagree strongly with many of your views that I consider articles of faith but that you present unqualified as facts.

It's difficult to separate the messenger and the message sometimes.

I should probably just withdraw from this thread as I do not see an opportunity for debating issue being done with any real objectivity.


Mike





[edit on 15-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 
That's a good idea, withdraw, quit, which shows exactly what I have been talking about. If people don't agree with you, you spend the next several posts attacking them. I know for a fact that the bible is full of fallacies. When king james had shakespeare rewrite it, there was a lot of stuff left out, and a lot added. You think I am not aware of things like that? Just because I called you to task about a certain biblical issue doesn't mean anything else besides that I disagreed with you, proved what I was disagreeing about, and showed that my "faith" had nothing to do with printed "facts" in the book called the bible. I learned a long time ago, when researching, you better hang your faith on a nail at the door, because if you don't, you'll spend more time wrestling with your innerself and other people than researching.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by thewind
reply to post by mmiichael
 
That's a good idea, withdraw, quit, which shows exactly what I have been talking about. If people don't agree with you, you spend the next several posts attacking them. I know for a fact that the bible is full of fallacies. When king james had shakespeare rewrite it, there was a lot of stuff left out, and a lot added. You think I am not aware of things like that? Just because I called you to task about a certain biblical issue doesn't mean anything else besides that I disagreed with you, proved what I was disagreeing about, and showed that my "faith" had nothing to do with printed "facts" in the book called the bible. I learned a long time ago, when researching, you better hang your faith on a nail at the door, because if you don't, you'll spend more time wrestling with your innerself and other people than researching.





Look, I don't want to argue with you personally, just on points.

Usually I've done a lot of research on the subjects I choose to discuss. And I mean a lot of *real* research. Books, peer review journals, actual documents, checking with experts.

Shakespeare did not, I repeat, did not rewrite the King James Bible. It was worked on by a team of scholars for many decades. We have a pretty clear record who did what based on surviving paperwork.

There is very little known about the man named Shakespeare to whom the 36 canonical plays are attributed. Most likely a floating group of writers. Shakespeare himself appears to have been nearly illiterate, according to survivng documents with his signature.

So sorry, I emphatically disagree with your blanket statements about Satan and what he is engineering these days. I consider him part of a biblical myth cycle and do not accept that such a figure literally exists.

This is not the forum to profess my beliefs and understandings of so vast an area of human history and it's literature.

So rather than jump on egregious errors and assumptions knowing that I will not successfully penetrate a barrier I perceive, I'd just as soon use my time to exchange insights and information with people willing to learn new things and concede they are bot the experts they consider themselves to be.


Mike



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

MMichael, I was being sarcastic when I said I thought that you should quit the thread! You're a good provider of information, but the info you provide, is just simply wrong at times. Like saying that william shakespeare never rewrote the king james version of the bible? Shakespeare done that when he was 46 years old, and that's common knowledge anybody can google for themselves. Shakespeare possessed over 25,000 words in his vocabulary, pretty impressive for his time back then, but it was his associate (Marlowe) that wrote all his plays because ole willie just wasn't that creative. Yes, it's true that some deny and lay claim that william never rewrote anything, but there is more info out there citing that he did, and judging from all the thees, thous, and other various sorts of words that just were not used in biblical times, it's pretty hard to diss the idea that shakespeare never rewrote the bible at the indulgence and request of king james himself. I never like to be argumentative mmichael, I just let the info I provide speak for it'self, and allow those who read my research decide for themselves. If we try to force-feed info to people, rejection is sure to come. That is why I always implore folks to check up on my info, and if they question it, let me answer as to why I believe my info is right and theirs is wrong, and if my info is wrong or lacking something of merit, trust me, I'll say it is as such. Trust me mmichael, I never rebutt you before I read and check out the info you post. To be honest, a lot of the stuff you exhibit is like mine, it can go either way, it's up to the reader to judge for him or herself as to why the info may or may not be legitimate. Credibility is the key, and we all must have reliable sources. When I post something, I always, and I mean always cross-reference all my information with a minimum of 5-7 sources, as to catch what I call any static problems. So don't think I just post things to hear my head rattle, for I believe it is not just my job mmichael to wake people up, it is your job also, as it is all the rest of the people here at ats. Yes, we will run into scoffers and other various sorts of hecklers, but that's par for the course in this scheme of things. Look at how much heckling Jesus got back in his day? Yet he still loved mankind as a whole enough to tell his father (God), not to judge them too harshly for they knew not what they do!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join