Christians: What's your relationship with the dead?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


I'd rather you just tell me what you believe, and I'll believe that you do actually believe it. But sure, link me the vids, and I'll watch them when I'm up to it. I really prefer to hear your commentary, and I'll know that you source to the vids.

I've done research into the Bible and the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls; but I'd really like you to answer the questions. Please don't assume I "won't believe you"...if you say you believe it, I'll believe you believe it. Nevertheless, there are countless "versions" of books, and each religion claims theirs is the "right one."

Thanks. I'm more interested in personal beliefs than research perusing; I can do that on my own. Hope you know what I mean.
edit on 27-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

EDIT TO ADD:
Please keep in mind that what the Bible says is not proven to be factual. That's why folks disagree that it is to be taken literally; it's the only source for its "truthiness." Like the others have said; the Bible saying it's true doesn't make the Bible true, nor does it prove the Bible is true. No amount of videos can do that, either.

It's the facts on the ground, the hard evidence that BACKS UP written information that confirms it; not just someone saying something and then saying "This is all true."

Perhaps I will not ever be convinced until they find a scientific way to prove the claims are PROBABLE, and so far my own research has indicated that there isn't any. Therefore, I am left with options but no concrete justification for any of them. Beyond that, I have to use either magical thinking or common sense, and the more I do study the stories and legends the less they seem probable. They seemed improbable to me even as a little girl. So, your work is cut out for you to change my thinking without scientific evidence.

Nevertheless, I want to know WHY you believe it; and I'll believe that is your reason, whether or not I believe your reason itself is true.
Just trying to make my stance clear.
edit on 27-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-10-2012 by wildtimes because: formatting and clarification




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


I have an additional question for you, JesuitGarlic. In looking into web descriptions of your faith, I found this quote:

"God has children, many of them, in the Protestant churches, and a large number in the Catholic churches, who are more true to obey the light and to do [to] the very best of their knowledge than a large number among Sabbathkeeping Adventists who do not walk in the light. {3SM 386.2}"

— Ellen White, Selected Messages, book 3, p.386.
fromEllen G White and her status Wiki entry

Yet, when you come here to educate us, you insist that everyone in the other Protestant churches, and ESPECIALLY the Catholics, are all going to hell for not following the rules you uphold as required. Do you not agree with her statement?
(It appears not, but I may be wrong.)
edit on 27-10-2012 by wildtimes because: CORRECT DOUBLE NEGATIVE. oops.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 

That's some serious cult paranoia you've got going there. Most churches think they are right and tries to evangelize others. Catholic. Baptist. Pick one. Your's isn't specially chosen .. it's not being picked on ... it's just one group out of dozens and dozens that other Christians evangelize. Evangelizing those they think are wrong. Much like you are doing here on ATS. (except they aren't as paranoid)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
That doesn't stop the steady stream of Catholic and Jesuit priests we keep finding infiltrating our churches and schools trying to destroy us from the inside out over the past 80 years. Trying to destroy our faith and doctrines over and over again.

That doesn't stop the Jesuits in China counterfeiting our Adventist book on the history of the protestant reformation and end time prophecy


I am attempting to find any non-SDA source of information that supports this claim, and what I'm running into is a lot of anti-Jesuit sites that seem to have taken claims from other conspiracy minded folks and just replaced "Illuminati" or "Mason" or "Whatever" with "Jesuit". Like this:


Today the pope’s Jesuits are not only entrenched at the highest levels of all branches and departments of the U.S. Government, but they are also entrenched at the highest levels of virtually all the major corporations and industries in the United States. The Jesuits are the major stockholders of many of the largest corporations. They own 51% of the stock in Bank of America for instance. And because the papacy is a so-called church, they pay not one penny of taxes. Because they are a so-called church, they are able to operate internationally outside of the laws and legal proceedings everyone else must follow.

Here are a few of the Jesuit-controlled corporations that totally support their Jesuits in congress and the government: American Airlines, TWA, Anheuser Busch, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Boeing, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Daimler Chrysler, Exxon, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, May Company, McDonald’s, Motorola, Philip Morris, Price-Waterhouse, Rite Aid, RJR Nabisco, Sony Corp. of America, Texaco, United Parcel Service, Walt Disney Company, and Wells Fargo.

The Jesuits are not recognized by the general populace because of their treachery and secrecy. They tell no one that they are Jesuits. They even belong to other churches, other cultures, and other organizations, that they have infiltrated, to hide their identity and to control these organizations.

There are millions and millions of the pope’s Jesuits. They are everywhere. They are into everything. They are into every major organization, and control nearly every political organization and government in the world. Because of the Jesuits’ extreme secrecy, many of these organizations and governments are totally unaware that they are being infiltrated and controlled. (Source)


I really have to wonder about the brain of the person who wrote that. How can they not know how implausible those claims are, and how simple it is to demonstrate that it's a fantasy?

As of June 2012, the largest single shareholder of Bank of America stock is the Vanguard Group. They have a grand total of 4% of the outstanding shares, worth $3.6 billion, and the numbers quickly drop off from there (Source). Of course, the Vanguard Group isn't the Catholic Church, and it's not even a handful of people -- it has, itself, thousands of individual investors. For the Jesuits to own 51% of the shares of BOA, they would essentially have to be everyone, and have sunk over 50 billion dollars into that single company.

Not only is that implausible, it is laughably so. Only someone who had a preexisting bias against Catholics would believe any of those ridiculous claims I quoted.


Hmmm, so this little insignificant church with its quirky teachings is the only one the Catholic church acknowledges follows the Bible (as I have documented previously with quotes) yet the Catholic church feels it necessary for us to be target number 1 to infiltrate and try destroy and alter our teachings through deception.


As I said, I'm attempting to track down non-SDA sources that aren't complete over-the-rainbow nuts like the one referenced above. By the way, do you agree with the claims he made that I posted here?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Okay, found it. I decided to do some reading on your "Pastor David Kang", and it doesn't sound like he's particularly well respected even among the SDA community, but in this thread I found this post:


Posted by: Sybil « on: October 17, 2011, 06:49:34 AM on the Remnant Online email forum »:

I made an inquiry to Elder Fagal at the EGW Estate. Here is his response:

Dear Sister,

Good to hear from you again! We have made inquiry about this with the Adventist leadership that deals with China, and they do not have an ongoing concern. There were some books that were modified and published, but according to sources in China, the perpetrators have been caught and the church members there have been informed of the problem, so they know about the tainted books. We have no information here that Jesuits were involved in the counterfeiting, as reports had claimed.

I hope this may help. Thank you for writing, and God bless!

William Fagal
Associate Director
Ellen G. White Estate
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600 U.S.A.

www.whiteestate.org...

mail @ whiteestate.org (Source)


The answer to your question of "why the Catholic Church feels it necessary for us to be target number 1 to infiltrate and try destroy and alter our teachings through deception" is that they don't. Apparently your buddy Kang lied and you believed it.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Your outrage at the blatant changing of the words in your holy book is understandable. It is outrageous.

It brings up the obvious question, though, that is: Do you think yours is the only book that has been altered to suit someone else's goals?

If you acknowledge it was done to yours, then, do you ALSO acknowledge that ANY "Bible" VERSION is very likely to have been MODIFIED from a previous version as well?


The book by Ellen White, 'The Great Controversy' is not considered a 'Holy' book, none of her writings are considered 'holy'. The Bible is the only Holy book.

I do not acknowledge though that all bible versions are likely to have been modified from the original though. I acknowledge that the Catholic Bible has been altered and the vast majority of the modern English version have been altered, but I believe the stream of Bibles/manuscripts that led to the 1611 King James Bible for English readers is near enough identical to the original and if I was to justify my faith doctrinally then I would just use the KJV.

Let me explain why...


David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles.

The first stream which carried the Received Text [Textus Receptus] in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation.

These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class.

The second stream is a small one of very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts are represented:
a. In Greek: - The Vatican MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph [found in 1844]
b. In Latin: - The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. (383 A.D.)
c. In English: - The Jesuit Bible of 1582 [used to counteract the reformation bible], which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible.
d. In English again: - In many modern Bibles.
source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 64


We see that the stream that led to the KJV is a separate stream than the Catholic stream, it is earlier (dating back to the era of the apostles) and it is widely dispersed amongst the early churches.

Lets have a look at the Catholic stream some more

We need to understand, that many of the new translations are taken from old manuscripts. People think that these are more reliable. In actual fact they are saying , that a manuscript found in a waste paper basket in a cave in Mt. Sinai and questionable manuscripts from Alexandria in Egypt [a hub of occultism], are more reliable than the Received Text.
Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 15



Origen [an initiate in mystery schools of occultism], being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt.
source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 16



331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an 'ecumenical Bible' be written [to change the Word of God using Gnostic writings so that the pagans and the Christian's might be able to get along, the early Christians rejected those writings as not from God and these corrupted versions from Eusebius got shelved in various libraries unused, later to be dug up and considered 'ancient manuscripts', about 50 copies made were found largely in the occultist centers of Rome and Alexandria]. Eusebius, a follower of Origen, was assigned to direct this task. Eusebius rejected the deity of Christ and claimed that Christ was a created being. This error is called the Arian heresy.

1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This manuscript repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done by Euebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the 'ecumenical Bible' of Constantine.

1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimizes the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. These two manuscripts were probably two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

1881 A. D. The Westcott and Hort [Jesuit agents of Rome disguising themselves as protestants to try destroy protestantism from the inside out as I will show] Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus [aka the Received Text] and follows the Vatican and Sinaitic corruptions.

It must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries.

source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 46


Meaning, the common people of God's Church readily used and had access to the Received Text which was translated into multiple languages, widely dispersed throughout other countries and all in agreement with each other. The source of the ‘Catholic Bible’ is created from Eusebius which was rejected by the early Christians because they knew it was corrupted and then later ‘rediscovered’ in the library of Rome (in 1481, just in time for the protestant reformation) and in their Monastery of Saint Catherine (in 1844).


The Jesuits were called to help and they said, "We must undermine the Bible of the Protestants and destroy their teachings."
...The Queen of England realizing the damage the Jesuit Bible would do, sent to Europe for Beza, Who was with John Calvin, to help...Thomas Cartwright.
With one hand he took hold of all the Greek manuscripts and with the other hand he took hold of all the Latin manuscripts from the Received Text, and he hit the Jesuit Bible blow and blow...Finally the Spanish Armada [sent by the Vatican] came against England with 136 armed ships, with some 50 cannons...England could only gather 30 ships and these were lead by Franis Drake. Freak storms came down the English Channel and the Spanish ships were found wrecked right up to the Scottish coast...
Source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 60


History…when the forces of darkness come up against God’s Word to destroy it as Rome set out to do against the Bible being translated for the English tongue then God makes sure to preserve it (the idea that God did not preserve the truth of His Word in the past (e.g Old Testament) should therefore not be assumed unless evidence points to the contrary which it doesn’t).


Jesuit View of the Bible
The Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom whole it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it...for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us.."
source: 'The Jesuits in History', Hector Macpherson, (springfield, Missouri: Ozark Book Publishers, 1997; originally published in 1900) Appendix 1.



Jesuit Catechism
Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.
Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope

source: Roy Livesey, 1998, Understanding the New Age: World Government and World Religion (Chichester, England: New Wine Press) p. 104)
edit on 28-10-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Luigi Descantis was a Priest at Rome, Professor of Theology, and official Theological Censor of the Inquisition writes:


Before the English people could go the way of the Continent and be brought to question their great English Bible, the course of their thinking must be changed. Much had to be done to discredit, in their eyes, The Reformation - its history, doctrines, and documents - which they looked upon as a great work of God. This task was accomplished by those who, while working under cover, passed as friends. In what numbers the Jesuits were at hand to bring this about, the following words, from one qualified to know, will reveal:

source: 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated' Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Leaves of Autumn Books, 1996



Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me, omnia munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might save the Jews; it was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants. But pay attention, I entreat you, to discover concerning the nature of the religious movement in England termed Puseyism.

The English clergy were formerly too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion by Bossuet and Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from history and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usage of the English Church, whence, through the exertions of the Jesuits concealed among its clergy, might arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from their Bibles."

source: Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, p. 128, 134 quoted in, ‘Secret History of Oxford Movement’, by Walter Walsh p. 33


So right out of the horse’s mouth the RCC tells us it has infiltrated English churches and is trying to destroy the protestants hold of what is in the Bible.

Now we move to the modern Bibles and who corrupted them and how it was

Quotes from books written by the sons of Westcott and Hort (published in 1896):
- The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott
- The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort

Quick Background...Westcott born in 1825, Hort in 1828. Both were members of the Broad Church Party of the Church of England. They worked for thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament.

1851 Decemeber 20th - Fort to John Ellerton:

"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on the late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones"
(Life, Vol. I, p. 211)


Does this sound like a Jesuit speaking (compare this to the section ‘Jesuit’s view of the Bible’)

September 29th - Westcott to Hort:

"As to our proposal recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare an object for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text [little imperceptible changes so that the protestant British won't see the obvious corruptions], and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable... ...The margin will give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles (life, Vol. I, p.228-229)


1854 Hort to Rev. John Ellerton on Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory..." (ibid, p. 275)


While advising a young student he wrote:

"the Idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine Chastisements.." (ibid., Vol. II, p. 336)


1860 October 15th - Hort to Westcott:

"I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (life, Vol. I, p. 240)


He is saying that the doctrine that Jesus died for you is an immoral doctrine but that what is moral is that we can become as God

October 17th - Hort to Westcott:

...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and 'Jesus'-Worship have very much in common in their causes and results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation...(Life, Vol. 2, p. 49-50)


They are saying that Mary can mediate from you just as well as Jesus. Is this Catholic doctrine or Biblical doctrine?

1865 September 27th - Westcott:

"I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles (Life, Vol. I p. 251-252)


What protestant would praise the ‘truth’ of Mary Worship…none, these guys are Jesuits infiltrators trying to pass off this revised text as coming from protestants so that it would be accepted. That is how the Jesuits of the Catholic church operate to destroy people.

1870 July 7 - Hort:

"it is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of first...The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences...It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. (Life, p. 138-139).


They liken their altered Bible text to turning a masterpiece into a ‘feeble copy’…and are very chuffed with themselves with being able to pull it off for their Church.

Summary:
The Bible is not Catholic, the Bible was been preserved accurately across many languages from the very beginning and the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that the KJV has remained true to the original. There are different degrees of corruptions across the English Bible translations, the Catholic stream bibles being the most corrupt (from what the apostles taught) while the more modern translations which use the work of Westcott and Hort [Catholic agents] have sought to corrupt those versions in a way that if you were going to argue against false RCC doctrine you would not be able to prove it from those Bible typically (as well as them trying to decrease the deity of Jesus, through giving Him lesser titles and even complete omissions of verses).

The information in the Bible though is not made up and should be taken as having actually occurred like it says (other than the parables used as illustrative purposes only by Jesus and the books of symbolic prophecies, those symbolic meanings need to be deciphered first)
edit on 28-10-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



I am attempting to find any non-SDA source of information that supports this claim,


I can provide you with the video testimonials of people that support the claim...I doubt you will find the info from a non-sda source (we clean up our own messes) other than Alberto Rivera but I have all the official identity documentation and photographs to prove he was an ex-Jesuit and testimonies of support from Catholic priests and nuns that also vouch for him, as well can back up multiple things that he was said about the Jesuit dealings from numerous other credible sources as well.
edit on 28-10-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Doesn't change the fact that without wheatfields outside Jerusalem, leap year (Adar II) could not be determined which throws off the biblical calendar. An SDA stooping to using a Pope's calendar and believing it, just to prove a point. So now you are legitimizing Rome's authority now? I have seen everything now. Yeah there was a prophecy concerning a certain someone having authority to change the times. You should know this one.

Daniel 7:25

25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[d] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



The answer to your question of "why the Catholic Church feels it necessary for us to be target number 1 to infiltrate and try destroy and alter our teachings through deception" is that they don't. Apparently your buddy Kang lied and you believed it.


Fact: The Great Controversy books were illegally counterfeited in China
Fact: They were alter to reflect pro-Catholic teaching
Fact: The only ones who benefited from it were Catholics

Thus, whoever was involved had allegiances to the Catholic church

Fact: Changing the teachings in those books will lead people into deception come the tribulation period because of the action of those who's allegiances were with the Catholic church (thus they are responsible for those souls who will be destroyed because of it)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



I do not acknowledge though that all bible versions are likely to have been modified from the original though. I acknowledge that the Catholic Bible has been altered and the vast majority of the modern English version have been altered, but I believe the stream of Bibles/manuscripts that led to the 1611 King James Bible for English readers is near enough identical to the original and if I was to justify my faith doctrinally then I would just use the KJV.


Okay, I believe it isn't identical enough to justify it being the only truest version. Based on my own research over the decades.

A VIEW OF THE VERSIONS
Examining the Positive & Negative Qualities Of Various Versions & Translations Of God's Holy Scriptures

THE KING JAMES VERSION
A Critical Analysis
by Al Maxey


There are many people who feel that the KJV is THE Bible; that it constitutes the STANDARD by which all other versions and translations must be measured. Some have even gone so far as to state that the KJV itself was "inspired by God," and that it is 100% free of any errors or imperfections. Such attitudes have led some of the supporters of the KJV to condemn all other translations of the Bible as either inferior, or the intentional efforts of "Satan and his servants" to subvert the Word of God. Others, in turn, have accused the admirers of the KJV of virtual "idol worship."

It should never be overlooked that this version, like all others both before and after it, is the work of mere uninspired, fallible men to provide the people with God's Word in their own language. It is a noble effort, and one which has captured the hearts of countless people, but it also has its weaknesses as well as its strengths, as will be seen in the following study.

Interested? Here are some of the inaccuracies others have identified:

INACCURACIES IN THE KJV
Although some have very heatedly, and even unkindly, contended that the KJV has NO inaccuracies .... that it is absolutely PERFECT ..... that it always accurately renders the original Hebrew & Greek texts and never misses the intended meaning of the original, this is simply not true! Notice the following examples:
There are nine examples of TRANSLATION inaccuracies listed. And those are just examples. The cited items are:
Psalms 8:5
Genesis 12:19
Psalms 77:2
John 20:17
Acts 5:30; 10:39
Romans 3:25
II Corinthians 2:17
James 3:2 (two of them in this one)

And the translation of the word "agape".

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INACCURACIES IN THE KJV
The translators of the KJV lived and worked over 400 years ago. This is a considerable length of time, especially considering the many important discoveries which have been made since then. These discoveries have shed considerable light on areas of the text that they simply did not understand at the time they made their translation. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but through their lack of knowledge they made many unintentional errors in the text. The following are just a few examples:
Six examples of ARCHAEOLOGICAL inaccuracies.

It goes on to point out lack of uniformity, done on purpose to increase interest for the reader,

This use of variety by the KJV translators, however, was done intentionally. They felt it made the Bible more interesting for the reader. Although variety of expression can indeed be good at times, and even necessary on occasion (some Greek and Hebrew words have many different shades of meaning, which should be reflected in a translation), yet this variety can be carried too far. Variety for variety's sake can lead to unnecessary confusion.

Then there is just the basic English grammar and usage difference between the 17th century and now:

The English language has undergone tremendous changes since that time (as does any language). As a result, there are places in the text of the KJV that are simply impossible for the vast majority of people today to understand.

It includes a set of phrases with fill-in-the-blanks to test the reader's knowledge of the English used at the time. I happen to be very knowledgable about English in that time, after many years of study in theatre and also independent research into geneaological original documents. I'm very keen on language. I wrote an entire (fictional) book using the real (FACTS ON THE GROUND -- extant documents from then) vernacular of the time as my source. So, I can attest to the difficulty of comprehension for modern readers.

There's more, so much more, JesuitGarlic.
see below:
edit on 28-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



No extant version of the Bible, nor Ellen White's interpretations of it, can be ascertained as accurate and factual. Seems to me you're pushing that boulder uphill for no real reason except fear (for others or yourself, either way).


I can show that huge portions of the most fanciful stories in the Bible occurred....and perhaps it about time I started to post on this seeing that the other two as well seem to have big issues believing that the OT is of much factual worth.

If people don't believe the Bible can be trusted then most likely they will be deceived during the end days delusion because they have no foundation for what is absolute truth. Their eyes, and ears, and feelings and peers will all being pushing them to believe the lie and they won't have any foundation to know what is from God and how to give your allegiance to Him alone.


You have no more right to insist that YOUR understanding of the Bible is correct than any other sect.


Anyone who believes in the Bible alone as their only source of authority on doctrine (which should be every Christian, but evidently isn't) would be a Seventh-day Adventist if they had a strong understanding of scripture. At this stage of the thread it is a fairly pointless exercise to prove that (but if someone thinks that any particular SDA doctrine is incorrect with scripture and leads people away from God, then I am happy to post on the issue raised)

I will post on your Ellen White question tomorrow



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 

The "more" includes
Embarrassing Passages
Textual Manipulation
Doctrinal Problems (a whole bunch of those listed!)
and the net result:

CONCLUSION

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other examples that could be cited, but these few will have to suffice to illustrate some of the major areas of concern with the KJV. Even though there are some obvious problems with this translation, it should not be rejected --- after all, there are problems with every translation and version! These are simply the efforts of mere fallible, uninspired men to render the Word of God into the current language of their own people. Flawed men will produce flawed translations and versions!

The most obvious positive quality of the KJV is the beauty of its language, and the dignity of its expression (at least to our modern day ears; it probably did not have that same effect upon its original readers in 17th century England). Some have even stated it sounds "holier" than more modern translations, and it is true that there is a definite "reverential ring" to the wording as perceived by modern day Americans. Again, however, this was not the intention of the KJV translators. The rhythm of the KJV has also made it much easier to memorize than many of the more modern translations. Although many of the newer translations and versions are far more accurate, it must be admitted that they just don't compare to the literary beauty of the KJV's expression.

The major concern of those embroiled in the "Translation Debate" that is raging today, however, is that far too many advocates of the KJV place undue importance upon this one translation. It is almost literally worshipped!! The concept of "one translation for all people for all time" is simply ludicrous, and displays only the foolishness and ignorance of those who make such ridiculous claims. Even the KJV translators themselves wrote, "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

Such a limited view also does not take into consideration all the other languages of the world. If the KJV is the only infallible version (as some claim .... "The version the apostle Paul used!"), what are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?!

Must they learn English (17th century British English, of course) so as to have access to the one true version of the Bible? And what is to become of the millions of English speaking peoples of the future when our language evolves to the point where 17th century English is no longer understandable to the common man (as if it were now!!)? Must all people everywhere become fluent in a "dead language" in order to understand the "living Word?"

Dr. Jack P. Lewis sums it up this way: "Those who feel they can escape the problem of translations by retreating into the citadel of the KJV have a zeal for God that is not in accord with knowledge. There are no valid reasons for one to insist fanatically that everyone should read only the KJV; to declare that it is a mark of orthodoxy to use the KJV as a standard, consulting other translations only for comparisons; and to look with suspicion on the person who calls attention to the shortcomings of the KJV or who has other preferences in his reading.

"Were the KJV the form in which God first gave the Bible (as some have actually thought) there would be justification for the insistence that everyone must learn its brand of English in order to learn the will of God. But it is NOT the original Bible. The translators worked neither by inspiration nor with special Divine approval. There is no valid reason why God's Word should be frozen in 17th century English by those who have educated themselves to understand it, while men perish for want of understanding. The KJV Preface asks, 'How shall men meditate on that which they do not understand?'"

(source of quote - The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation).


I agree with Dr Lack P Lewis, if he said this. But, maybe he didn't. Maybe someone tweaked what he said.
It's possible.
Right? See how that works?
edit on 28-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen
 



I am attempting to find any non-SDA source of information that supports this claim,


I can provide you with the video testimonials of people that support the claim...I doubt you will find the info from a non-sda source (we clean up our own messes) other than Alberto Rivera but I have all the official identity documentation and photographs to prove he was an ex-Jesuit and testimonies of support from Catholic priests and nuns that also vouch for him, as well can back up multiple things that he was said about the Jesuit dealings from numerous other credible sources as well.


Oh, good grief... Alberto Rivera? You really have gone round the bend. Stop reading Jack Chick comics and come into the real world.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Fact: The Great Controversy books were illegally counterfeited in China
Fact: They were alter to reflect pro-Catholic teaching
Fact: The only ones who benefited from it were Catholics


Fact: Your own church says that Jesuits had nothing to do with it.

You're delusional, that demonstrates it, and I don't know why anyone should care what you have to say about anything. You've shown that you will openly and blatantly lie to make a point, and yet you claim to be a Christian.

As I told you when replying to your PM that threatened me, you are piling coals on your own head. Reflect and repent, pal, because one day you will be called to answer for your hatred of Christians.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   


...?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



You've shown that you will openly and blatantly lie to make a point, and yet you claim to be a Christian.


Incorrect. I was not aware of the post of information you found when I first made my point. The fact remains that Catholic involvement was still there. Accusing someone of lying when there was no lie then making yourself out to be the innocent party is something YOU should apologize for.

The only one 'delusional' here is who hasn't investigated their own Church history before, who has in their signature 'In the end, faith isn't about God meeting your expectations, but you meeting his' but dismisses correction on being shown from God's Word how you are not meeting God's expectations, who dismisses the word of their own priests that can be shown to be accurate because those with allegiances to the Papacy posing as 'independent' protestant sources say otherwise, who follows traditions that come from paganism over God's Word thinking it pleases God...

You are lucky that God winks at your ignorance, but when you make false accusations against me and get personal then you will be shown a sample of just how delusional you are...to help you snap out of it. I warned you on personal attacks, you couldn't resist.

The more you make the more you will be shown the true character of your Church and just where you stand.
edit on 28-10-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen
 



You've shown that you will openly and blatantly lie to make a point, and yet you claim to be a Christian.


Incorrect. I was not aware of the post of information you found when I first made my point. The fact remains that Catholic involvement was still there.


No it does not. What did your church say?

1) We've got a handle on it
2) We know who did it
3) They are not Jesuits

Where is the "fact of Catholic involvement" in there? It could have been Communists, other Protestants, atheists, Jesuit haters, Kane himself, who knows? But if it was Catholics, your own church would not have cleared the Jesuits. Whether you were aware of that particular post when you first started going on about is one thing, but the fact that you're still going on about it, even after you admit that you've seen what your church says demonstrates that you're too biased to even admit you made a mistake.


The fact remains that Catholic involvement was still there


In the face of what is known, that statement is a lie. Pure and simple.

Are you going along with the nut who seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him is a Jesuit? You didn't seem to have any issue with those dumb claims of his that I posted.


The only one 'delusional' here is who hasn't investigated their own Church history before


Sure, I'm the one in this conversation who is ignorant of history... while the man who gets his facts out of comic books is an authority.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The Bible is not Catholic,

The bible is Catholic. No amount of linguistic gymnastics by you can change that.

the KJV has remained true to the original.

1 - The 'Original' was put together by a Catholic council. The original is CATHOLIC.

2 - If anyone wanted to put out their own version .. they can do so. There is no 'authority' that anyone has to check with in order to put out their own version. It was written by men. Men can change it.

3 - King James Version Errors
Errors in the King James Bible
bible errors and contradictions
Biblical Parallels in Summerian Literature


The information in the Bible though is not made up and should be taken as having actually occurred like it says

Like I said .. prove that Adam and Eve actually existed. Good luck with that.

Like I said .. prove that Noahs Ark existed and that Noah and his family were the only survivors, along with two of each kind of animal. Good luck with that.

So which Genisis supposedly happened? There are TWO versions.
Both couldn't actually have occurred like the bible says.

9/10 of the 10 Commandments can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (chapter 125).
The only one missing from the Egyptian Book of the Dead ... Keep Holy The Sabbath.
Moses, who had an education from the best schools in Egypt, knew the Book of the Dead.
Obviously he copied the 10 Commandments from the Book of the Dead and added the
Hebrew 'keep holy the sabbath' to keep order over the Jews.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I can show that huge portions of the most fanciful stories in the Bible occurred....

Then I suggest you do it.


In the mean time .... on topic ... the relationship with the dead question ....

- The bible contradicts itself as to the state of souls after the body dies.

- The bible itself admits it does not contain 'all truth and knowledge'.

- Using circular logic to prove the bible is 'all true' because the bible says so, is like a Muslim saying the Qu'ran is 'all true' because the Qu'ran says so. In other words ... it doesn't work.

- Faiths other than Christianity have their own beliefs about the dead. Everyone has their own belief.

- Millions and millions of people around the world, of all faiths, have encountered the 'dead'.

- Millions and millions of people around the world, of all faiths, have encountered evil and good spirits.

In the end, because of my own experiences with the 'other world' and because of my own research into what different faiths believe, I have come to believe the CATHOLIC version is probably the closest to the truth. The 'Communion of Saints'. That being .. we are all connected in some way .. we all pray for each other ... we all help each other ... the living and those who have been liberated from their physical bodies. I believe that those who have left their bodies are fully aware of what is happening on earth and, many times, can interact with the living. I believe this through personal experience. I believe in good and evil spirits .. having enounted both. And I have actually had the divine touch my soul on three occassions so I am VERY sure that there is a God .. that Jesus is ALIVE ... and that Mary herself is very aware of what is happening on Earth and is very capable of interacting with the living. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. (and I don't mean a hyped up 'praise the lord' church service self induced euphoria).





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join