The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Was The Bible Changed By the Illuminati?
edit on 27-11-2011 by riggo1 because: wrong title




posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I would just like to point out, as it strikes me as both very funny and sad, that we are here on an Internet site debating the truth and power of the "word of God" , while the ad at the top of my page is a close up of a woman's ass (nice ass, btw) with a striped, triangle bikini. Does that not ring any bells for what the triangle, the holy Trinity has been turned into vis a vis, this methodology and form of communication, and by extension, our political structure and what it is intended to "initiate,". The mother of the world and all life as nothing more than T & A, if I need to explain those abbreviations, you probably wouldn't understand my point anyway..... Just a thought



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Though I thoroughly dislike and reject where the OP is coming from as evidenced in my replies, in which, by the way, I have provided him referenced admission within the bible itself of revision, I would also like to point out, I do not believe in an either/or situation. I think there is much truth to be found in many places. I'd just like to caution against the removing of all fine distinctions, and making everything black and white. In other words, because some has been revised does not mean the whole holds no truth, whatsoever. Just my humble opinion....


Please understand that this is so far from being about likes or dislikes, that you couldn't fly there if you had a space ship. I don't care if you like me or what I say because it isn't about that either. All I'm seeing is links that really do fail as objective evidence and for sure wouldn't hold water in a court of law. That and a crap full of opinions.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8[

Can You Trust the Bible Historically? - Is it a Game of Telephone? - What about the Gnostic Gospels?



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Council of Nicaea myth debunked



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggo1
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8[

Can You Trust the Bible Historically? - Is it a Game of Telephone? - What about the Gnostic Gospels?


What about them ? Oh not in the Bible that's what.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


It was left out because it is very contradictory to what the bible attempts to illustrate. Jesus as an enlightened being when in fact he was just a man.

Tell me then why it is when the templars were excavating the temple of soloman during the first crusade and allegedly found the ark of the covenant that they immediately switched their religious views to a more Gnostic viewpoint??



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by superman2012
 


Show me the original to the Odyssey by Homer, or else it was obviously edited to control people.


Indeed. Please justify how this correlates to a major religion...or did someone forget to eat their troll food?



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 





You sir embody everything I despise about religion


Not that I even give a crap but it's very rude to assume I even have a religion.

Superman
Show me the proof . I will look thru your links later. But I'm asking you to make this easy for everyone to see.
K ?
edit on 27-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I did. Look through the links, I can type it all out for you if you would like, but, I figured it would be easier to click on links than to read a wall of text.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by randyvs
 


It was left out because it is very contradictory to what the bible attempts to illustrate. Jesus as an enlightened being when in fact he was just a man.

Tell me then why it is when the templars were excavating the temple of soloman during the first crusade and allegedly found the ark of the covenant that they immediately switched their religious views to a more Gnostic viewpoint??


Um because they were men, under the influence of a currupt institution and what has this got to do, with such an easy task that I have asked you to perform ? Nothing. But I'm a troll.
edit on 27-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by fixer1967



Now add to the fact that most of the Bible was written 400 to 500 years after the fact


No they were not. They were copied, but not written after the fact.




They were written (depending on the book) from 1400BC to 95AD. All of the later books were between 60 - 95AD. Again, these cannot be verified because there simply isn't a way to verify. Before you use that as your argument, provide proof that they were written immediately after Christ.
edit on 27-11-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I already said I would do that. So either go to the trouble or keep your shirt on. I haven't refuted you yet.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Jeremiah, Scoffield edition, king James,: pg. 804, quoting from footnotes: The writing of Jeremiah in Chapters 30-36, cannot be arranged in consecutive order. Certain dates are mentioned but retrospectively. The narrative, so far as Jeremiah gives a narrative, is resumed at 37.1. These chapters constitute a kind of summary of prophecy concerning Israel as a nation, ,looking on especially to the last days, the day if the Lord, and the kingdom age to follow. If the marginal references are carefully followed the order will become clear. But these prophecies are interspersed with much historical matter concerning jeremeiah and his time.
Three writings by Jeremiah are to be distinguished: (1)30 1-3-. 40. This is impersonal--a general prophesy, and probably the earliest. (2)1. 1-36.23, destroyed by Jehoiakim. (3). The destroyed writing re-written (36.27), doubtless the writing preserved to us.

Need I quote more, Randy? The last paragraph spells enough out for proof of what you ask for....



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




They also can't see that those laws are in place for our own good.


Laws like the ones that suggest women who turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night should be stoned. Or that a rape victim should be forced to remain married to their attacker. Or perhaps Jesus' mandate that you must love him more than your family to be worthy. Yes such wonderful laws can be yours if the Bible is your guide.




I challenge that and ask you to prove it


Wait, you're challenging the READERS of this thread to prove the Bible has been changed. Randy ANYONE who's done more than a few minutes of research about the Bible knows that it's changed over the years. There are dozens of translations many of which bring different meanings to various verses. Not to mention certain books which were decided to be left out of Biblical canon while others were included.

Of course it SHOULD (keyword) be even easier to prove the Bible has been changed to a believer, since to most believers the Bible is Word of God than the book should be perfect and give sound moral advice. Yet the Bible gives a lot of horrible moral advice and is logically and morally self-contradictory. God is claimed to be merciful but then commits and condones slavery and genocide.

As for the idea of it being rewritten by the illuminati or some organization I find such an idea highly unlikely and unfounded, but then you are presupposing that what the ancients wrote is somehow good or to be cherished. There's a handful of endearing tales and a few poetic psalms sure but for the most part the Bible is a horrible book, certainly as far as morality is concerned.




Gods word is indestructable.


Prove to me the Bible is God's word first, then we'll talk about proving you wrong
edit on 27-11-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-11-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
And this is taken and quoted from the Scoffield edition of the king James bible, itself, regarding destruction and recreation, revision, of original information. The problem I have with this, is what others would oversimplify said "proof" exactly to mean, and therefore, the larger problem I have with what you have posted.....as you claim to be a staunch believer in the "word" but seem to lack the subtlety to know where the chipping away at this very word, in this format, so expressed, could lead, as the responses you have gotten to your OP have proven...



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Under the influence of what corrupt institution?? They were hunted down like dogs in the 1300s by the very institution that employed them. Entire villages that had any connection to them were burned to the ground and everyone executed. All because they flipped their beliefs and hid the ark from a corrupt institution. They didn't switch their viewpoint because of the church, they switched them because they found out their original beliefs were corrupt.
It has alot to do with everything. You are basically saying the Gnostic scriptures had no meaning because they were omitted from being in the bible. I say they do have meaning. The only People in recent times who had the only artifact that can prove the existence of god In their possession converted to Gnostic beliefs?? I say that's pretty damn important.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

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.


Please read the Wikipedia details about what the Council of Nicea had as its aims and what it achived. The council had these 5 agendas:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3. The Meletian schism
4. The validity of baptism by heretics
5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

There is no evidence, either in History or effect, that the Council of Nicea in any way established the Canon of the Books of the Bible, or made any amendments to those documents.

To mention the Concil of Nicea in regard to a suggestion that the Bible was changed is either due to ignorance or a deliberate "red herring".

edit on 27/11/2011 by chr0naut because: I like accuracy and clarity. This needed some clarification.


Sounds good! I will re-read that part, if you promise to read the whole article before you take one part out of context.
Remember, deny ignorance...don't support it.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I am no expert by any means, mainly because I long since stopped really caring about matters related to christianity and their holy stuff... but it wasn't very hard to find a reasonably decent article discussing this matter.


bible.org...

I admit, there are parts of it that I don't really feel hold up to scrutiny of "proof", although there are some tasty nuggets:



For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming
...
Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., loc. cit.).


The whole passage is relevant, but that's just a text bite.
edit on 11-27-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 

I asked you to prove it. If you cant do that you believe a lie.
Something well documented should be easily produced.

Dear randyvs,

if I were you, I would choose my words more carefully.

I remember a previous thread of yours, where you failed to prove that we have any historically accurate reference to support Jesus Christ's existence, or objective evidence that your believes are factually true.

So, should you still believe in Jesus Christ's existence, then according to your own words... you believe in a lie.
edit on 27-11-2011 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by randyvs
 




They also can't see that those laws are in place for our own good.


Laws like the ones that suggest women who turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night should be stoned. Or that a rape victim should be forced to remain married to their attacker. Or perhaps Jesus' mandate that you must love him more than your family to be worthy. Yes such wonderful laws can be yours if the Bible is your guide.




I challenge that and ask you to prove it


Wait, you're challenging the READERS of this thread to prove the Bible has been changed. Randy ANYONE who's done more than a few minutes of research about the Bible knows that it's changed over the years. There are dozens of translations many of which bring different meanings to various verses. Not to mention certain books which were decided to be left out of Biblical canon while others were included.

Of course it SHOULD (keyword) be even easier to prove the Bible has been changed to a believer, since to most believers the Bible is Word of God than the book should be perfect and give sound moral advice. Yet the Bible gives a lot of horrible moral advice and is logically and morally self-contradictory. God is claimed to be merciful but then commits and condones slavery and genocide.

As for the idea of it being rewritten by the illuminati or some organization I find such an idea highly unlikely and unfounded, but then you are presupposing that what the ancients wrote is somehow good or to be cherished. There's a handful of endearing tales and a few poetic psalms sure but for the most part the Bible is a horrible book, certainly as far as morality is concerned.




Gods word is indestructable.


Prove to me the Bible is God's word first, then we'll talk about proving you wrong
edit on 27-11-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-11-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)


Titen you're having a problem with what the thread is asking ? Sorry about that.






top topics



 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join