See other Religion Articles
Title: I Love the King James Bible
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 15, 2012
Author: Pablo
Post Date: 2012-11-15 16:55:11 by pablo
Keywords: None
Views: 783
Comments: 41
I have mentioned this before. I will now explain why I do not use the King James Bible, usually. It is really quite simple. History of English Versions by Benjamin Wilson The first English version of the New Testament was that made by John Wiclif, or Wycliffe, about the year 1367. It was translated from the Latin Bible, verbatim, without any regard to the idiom of the languages. Though this version was first in point of time, no part of it was printed before the year 1731. Tyndale's translation was published in 1526, either at Antwerp or Hamburg. It is commonly said that Tyndale translated from the Greek, but he never published it to be so on any title page of his Testament. One edition, not published by him, has this title -- "The Newe Testament, dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke, by Willyam Tyndale, and fynesshed in the yere of oure Lorde God, A. M. D. and xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember." It is evident he only translated from the Latin Vulgate. Coverdale published the whole Bible in English. in the year 1535. He "followed his interpreters," and adopted Tyndale's version with the exception of a few alterations. MATTHEW'S BIBLE was only Tyndale and Coverdale's published under the feigned name of Thomas Matthew. HOLLYBUSHE'S NEW TESTAMENT was printed in 1538, "both in Latin and English, after the Vulgate text," to which Coverdale prefixed a dedication to Henry VIII. THE GREAT BIBLE, published in 1539, purported to be "translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes," but it is certain that it was only a revision of Matthew's, with a few small alterations. It was named "the Great Bible," because of its large size. CRANMERE'S BIBLE, published in 1540, was essentially the the same as the Great Bible, but took his name on account of a few corrections which he made in it. THE GENEVA BIBLE was published at Geneva in 1560. The New Testament in 1557. Coverdale was one of the Geneva brethren who issued it. THE BISHOP'S BIBLE was a revisal of the English Bible, made by the bishops and compared with the originals. It was published in 1568. THE DOUAY BIBLE appeared in 1609, and was translated from the authentical Latin, or Vulgate. KING JAMES BIBLE, or the Authorized Version, was published in 1611. In the year 1604, forty-seven persons learned in the languages were appointed to revise the translation then in use. They were ordered to use the Bishop's Bible for the basis of the new version, and to alter it as little as the original would allow : but if the prior translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer or Whitchurch, and the Geneva edition agreed better with the text, to adopt the same. This translation was perhaps the best that could be made at the time, and if it had not been published by kingly authority, it would not now be venerated by English and American protestants, as though it had come direct from God. It has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors. Nearly 700 Greek MSS. are now known, and some of them very ancient : whereas the translators of the common version had only the advantage of some 8 MSS. none of which was earlier than the tenth century. TO THE READER. THAT "All Scripture, divinely inspired, is profitable, for Teaching, for Conviction, for Correction, for that Instruction which is in Righteousness," is the truthful testimony of the Sacred Writings about themselves. We rejoice to express our conviction that the Word of God was perfect and infallible as it emanated from those holy men of old, the Prophets and Apostles, who "spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit." As a revelation of Jehovah's will to the human race, it was requisite that it should be an unerring guide. Amid the ever conflicting strife of human opinions, and the endless diversity of thought, we needed such a standard, to lead us safely through the perplexing problems of life, to counsel us under all circumstances, to reveal the will of our Heavenly Parent, and to lift on high a celestial light, which streaming through the thick darkness that broods around, shall guide the feet of his erring and bewildered children to their loving Father's home. We needed therefore a testimony upon which to repose our faith and hope, free from all error, immutable, and harmonious in all its details -- something to tell us how to escape from the evils of the present, and attain to a glorious future. "With reverence and joy we acknowledge The Sacred Writings to be such, as they were originally dictated by the Holy Spirit. How important then that they should be correctly read and understood ! But can it be fairly said that such is the case with our present English Version? We opine not. Though freely acknowledging that it is sufficiently plain to teach men the social and religious duties of life, and the path to Immortality, yet it is a notable fact that King James' Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the Original Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written. There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; besides others which are now obsolete, through improvement in the language. Besides this, it has been too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of full and implicit confidence being placed in it as a genuine record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions of predestination. election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these it is probable were also the translators' opinions. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect." And according to Dr. Gell, it was wrested and partial, " and only adapted to one sect ;" but he imputes this, not to the translators, but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by "reasons of state." The Version in common use will appear more imperfect still, when the fact is known, that it was not a translation from the Original, but merely a revision of the Versions then in use. This is evident from the following directions given by King James to the translators, viz.: "The Bishops' Bible to be followed, and altered as little as the Original will permit. And these translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible -- namely, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." None of these were made from the Original Greek, but only compare with it -- being all translated from the Vulgate Latin. Hence it follows, that the authorized version is simply a revision of the Vulgate. And the Greek Text, with which it was compared, was compiled from Eight MSS. only, all of which were written since the tenth century, and are now considered of comparatively slight authority. The " Textua Receptus," or Received Greek Text, was made from these MSS., and is now proved to be the very worst Greek Text extant, in a printed form. And there was only one MSS. for the Book of Revelation, and part of that wanting, which was supplied by translating the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek ! Since the publication of the " Textus Rcccptus," and the Common Version, some 600 MSS. have been discovered, some of which are very ancient, and very valuable. The best and oldest of these is one marked B., Cod. Vaticanus, No. 1209, of the fourth and fifth centuries. The second marked A., Cod. Alexandrinus, of the fifth century. The third marked C, Cod. Fphrem., about the fifth century, and the fourth, marked D., Cod. Cantabujiensis, of the seventh century. Besides valuable assistance from ancient MSS., the DIAGLOTT has obtained material aid from the labors of many eminent Biblical Critics and Translators. Among these may be mentioned, -- Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmnnn, Tischendorf, Tittman, Tregelles, Doddridge. Macknight, Campbell, Koine, Middleton, Clark, Wakefield, Bloomfield, Thompson, Murdock, Kneeland, Boothroyd. Conquest, Sharpe, Gaussen. Turnbull, Trench, &c., &c. Should any person doubt the propriety of the Translation, in any particular part, let him not hastily censure or condemn till he has compared it carefully with the various authorities on which it is based; and even should he see reason to differ in some respects, a correct Greek Text is given, so that the Original may be always appealed to in cases of doubt. However imperfect the Translation may be considered by the Critic it cannot adulterate the Original. Yes, I love the King James Bible, BIT, that is only because I think that the men who did that translation did the best that they could under the conditions that they worked under, working with an earthly king who had political considerations first in mind, rather than holding as close as possible to the truth. That being said, I have no such kind regards for those who simply reprint those known errors in new copies/translations of the Bible. And they know!! You can find lists of spurious Bible verses that are passed around by those who use the King James Bible, so that they know what versus to cross out in their own copies. Yet, these same errors are reprinted time and again, just to make money. Is it correct to continue to furnish errors to people? Well, that is a decision that you must make. One thing I will warn you about. New versions of the Bible, when they come out, always claim that they 'are diligently compared with the originals.' This is true, but the only originals that they will use are the same 8 originals that were used for the King James Version. None of these date from before the 10th century, AND, they know that at least one of them is a false copy prepared by the Catholic church in order to fortify the belief in the trinity. That false copy is in a museum in Ireland, and everyone knows about it, except, of course, the people who buy Bibles. You should also carefully note that ALL 8 of those MSS were under the control of the Catholic church for centuries. Is there any wonder that there are errors in them?! Please, do your own research. Prove to yourself that what you read and trust is trustworthy. This is our obligation! Galatians 6:5 King James Version (KJV) For every man shall bear his own burden. No one can do this for you, or, make this decision for you. It is strictly YOUR decision. Your responsibility. Please make the effort. Poster Comment: Please remember, our Heavenly Father is love. Should we be any less?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: pablo, all (#0)
Great. Another whacko here to tell everyone how his/her interpretation of of the Christian book of fairy tales is the correct one and why the other 34000+ Christian cults are wrong and will burn in hell. Yawn. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT! That's OK. I understand. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. The churches that teach the trinity all came out of the Catholic church, and faithfully hold to the dogma of the Catholic church, but generally not the rituals. So, yes, I understand. Once a Catholic, or, Universalist, always one. The word catholic simply means universal. And, universal religion when applied to religion. And just what is the universal religion of the earth? Why, the trinity of course! This is why, in the Book of Exodus, we are told; Exodus 3:13 And Moses saith unto God, `Lo, I am coming unto the sons of Israel, and have said to them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they have said to me, What [is] His name? what do I say unto them?' 14 And God saith unto Moses, `I Am That Which I Am;' He saith also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.' 15 And God saith again unto Moses, `Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this [is] My name -- to the age, and this My memorial, to generation -- generation. YLT Does not matter which name you use, this is the meaning of THAT name. And, it is a memorial of Him for generation after generation. Then... Deuteronomy 6:4 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)`Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah; 5 and thou hast loved Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might, The above is what Jesus quoted as regards his Father at Matthew 22:37. Then... Isiah 43:11 I myself am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides me! 12 I myself declared and saved, and I proclaimed.[l] And there was no strange god[m] among you. And you are my witnesses,” declares[n] Yahweh, “and I am God. 13 Indeed, from this day I am the one, and no one can deliver from my hand. I perform,[o] and who can cancel it?”[p] Interesting verses. What is the strange god noted in verse 12? The trinity that ALL of the pagan nations around the Israelite worshipped. And they were being warned not to do the same. This is a common theme throughout the Bible. In many places, what is said in verse 13 is repeated: I am the one. The same thing is made clear in Deu 6:3; Jehovah our God is One God. The meaning is pretty clear. But just in case it is not... Deuteronomy 32:39 King James Version (KJV) See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. No god with me, I am the only one, but then again, you will believe only what your desires lead you too. 2 Corinthians 4:3 King James Version (KJV) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Quite interesting verses, are they not? Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
Probably not, as hell does not exist. And, according to the Encyclopedia of Christian religions, there are actually just over 41,000 so-called Christian churches. Exactly as Jesus foretold. Matthew 12:30 (CEB) Whoever isn’t with me is against me, and whoever doesn’t gather with me scatters. You have to admit, that is quite an accurate prophecy! 41,000 is a LOT of scattering!! Course, he also told us why this would happen. John 15:14 (AMP) You are My friends if you keep on doing the things which I command you to do. Of course, I well understand the problem. No one in this world wants to be obedient. At all. Such is life, or, the lack of life as the case may be. And why the yawn? Bored? Then why bother? I know too much about the Bible to be bothered by contrary words. Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
I was wondering when Ned Flanders got here.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote.
I found the language of the KJV to be an impediment.
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#3. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#1)
#4. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#2)
Christian cults are wrong and will burn in hell.
#5. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#2)
#6. To: pablo (#0)
My NIV study Bible is a better fit for me.
Anyone offended by this post, click here.
 | "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus. |
#7. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#2)
Yawn. Yes, it does get tedious. Lots of heat and little light. You can translate these books into any language you like, but the contradictions remain. Enough to keep Christians slicing and dicing one another forever. Great. Another whacko here to tell everyone how his/her interpretation of of the Christian book of fairy tales is the correct one and why the other 34000+ Christian cults are wrong and will burn in hell.
#8. To: randge (#7)
i agree.
#9. To: pablo (#0)
I've read it cover to cover, along with two other bible versions. As well as numerous other "holy" books. It's good to retain that subject matter for background information. Having said that, I find the average proselytizer obnoxious, insecure and generally attempting to overcompensate for some hidden hypocrisies' in his own character. the King James Bible
the quality of a man’s life is directly proportionate to
his commitment to excellence.’
#10. To: randge (#7)
Show me one, please, cause I have studied it rather extensively, and I have never found one..... once I took man's teachings/thinking out of the mix. but the contradictions remain.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#11. To: Armadillo (#6)
I understand. My first Bible was a King James, and, I still use it, as well as other copies of the King James for various reasons. But, that being said, once I read a different, in plain English, well, the language IS an impediment. Just as you say. What I have found to be helpful, when I have a serious question, is BibleGateway.com. When you request a scripture, they supply it in any of, I think, about 30 translations in English. THEN, if you wish, they have a button under the supplied verse where you can cascade the same verse in every English language Bible that they have!! A wonderful to help understand exactly what a verse is supposed to say. I found the language of the KJV to be an impediment.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#12. To: pablo (#0)
I won't let this pass without injecting Orthodox Christianity views, this is an excerpt from the link at the bottom: All Christians agree that Scripture is the heart of the Christian tradition. However, what they mean by this affirmation often differs. To shed light on how this affirmation ought to be understood, this paper will trace the history of the New Testament canon from the apostolic church to the present. The goal is to show how we know that the Church properly identified all and only those books that belong in Sacred Scripture and to consider the implications of the process of identification. When the church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as scripture. The first book written was probably I Thessalonians (c. 51) (or possibly Galations which may be c. 50-there is some controversy over the dating of Galatians). The last books were probably John, the Johannine epistles, and Revelations toward the end of the first century.(1) The books were written to deal with concrete problems in the church-immoral behavior, bad theology, and the need for spiritual "meat". Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately widely available. Some books like II Peter were read almost exclusively in their target area, a situation which continued for a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Thus, for instance, II Peter was rejected for centuries by many, and it is rejected by Nestorians to this day. (2) Even if not universally accepted, a book was highly regarded by its recipients and those church's in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, a book being used in public worship in a particular region. Twenty- seven of these books came in time to have universal canonicity, but others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian reading.(3) Although the New Testament books we have today were written in the first century, it took time for them to be accepted as universally authoritative. Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures. For instance, Hegessipus in the first half of the second century accepted only "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" as norms "to which a right faith must conform"(4) The Didascalia Apostolurum which appears to have been written in the first half of the third century in Northern Syria similarly states the authoritative norms are "the sacred scriptures and the gospel of God" (which it also refers to as "the Law, the book of the Kings and of the Prophets, and the Gospel" and the "Law, Prophet, and Gospel").(5) Moreover, the "Gospel" spoken of was often the Oral Gospel and not exclusively the four Gospels we have in our current Bible. There were also many apocryphal gospels written between the late first and early third centuries. Some of them appear to accurately preserve some of Christ's sayings and were long used in Christian circles (for instance, Eusebius (c. 325) writes that the Gospel of the Hebrews was still in use although not widely accepted); others were written to support some heretical sect.(6) While use was made of the four Gospels, in the first one and a half centuries of the Church's history, there was no single Gospel writing which is directly made known, named, or in any way given prominence by quotation. Written and oral traditions run side by side or cross, enrich or distort one another without distinction or even the possibility of distinction between them.(7) The reason for this is that the authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form. As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.(8) Many early Christians, in fact, had a preference for oral tradition. For instance, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what "Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice." However, he does mention the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew by name.(9) Early Christian preference for oral tradition had rabbinic parallels-for instance Philo though oral tradition was superior to scripture. In Semitic thought, the idea persisted for a long time. As late as the thirteenth century, Arab historian Abu-el-Quasim ibn `Askir said, "My friend strive zealously and without ceasing to get hold of [traditions]. Do not take them from written records, so they may not be touched by the disease of textual corruption."(10) While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John's Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John). (40) In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius.(41) In avoiding the pitfall of incorrect interpretation, then, good intentions are insufficient. Wisdom, accurate information, and the leading of the Spirit are all required-if one is missing any of them, one will almost certainly go astray. However, an accurate reading of history tells us that the Church existed about twenty years with no New Testament books; roughly 150 years before most of the books of the final New Testament canon were known and accepted by some important churchmen-and then, they accepted some additional books and did not know or knew and rejected some of the 27 books; almost 340 years before the first list that exactly matches the final canon was produced; and almost 480 years before the present canon was accepted by the last major group to resist (other than the Nestorians who reject five books to this day). Clearly, it was possible for people to be Christians with something less than total clarity about the contents of the New Testament. They were able to be Christians because they belonged to the Church which existed before the New Testament existed and has frequently been forced to make do with no written copies in whole areas due to persecution or poverty. The Church preserved and preserves the teaching of Christ and of His apostles, and not only the words on the pages of sacred scripture, but also the correct set of presuppositions, the authentic tradition which is required to interpret scripture correctly. Scripture is only properly interpreted in the context of the Church. If one's presuppositions are leading one to conclusions that differ from those of the early Church, one needs to change one's presuppositions. The simplest and safest way to do this is to learn and obey the tradition of the Church.
-Alex Kurtagic
#13. To: Buzzard (#9)
It's good to retain that subject matter for background information. Having said that, I find the average proselytizer obnoxious, insecure and generally attempting to overcompensate for some hidden hypocrisies' in his own character. I am pleased to hear that you have read the Bible. However, what you said infers that you no longer study it, and possibly consider it to be background information. But perhaps I misunderstand, and if so, I apologize. As to the last, I hardly think you will find me average. And, I do my best to be obedient to Jesus. Can you say the same? John 15:14 King James Version (KJV) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. I have a very strong desire to be his friend. VERY STRONG. And my life reflects that desire, as I have no desire whatsoever to be his enemy, which is the only other option on the table, so to speak. Now, what John 15:14 says is confirmed at John 14:12; John 14:12 King James Version (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. As it says, the works that he does/did, are required of those who believe in him. Which brings up the subject of proselytizer. I am sure you are aware that Jesus was the foremost proselytizer to have ever walked the earth. In the 3 1/2 years that he preached, he changed the world, according to modern day historians. Quite a feat. So, as a 'believer,' I am sure that you do the same as he did. Now, as to being obedient to him; Matthew 28:19 King James Version (KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. And after you have talked to them, you do teach them EVERYTHING that Jesus commanded us, right? I mean, as a believer, that is. And, of course, you fill them in fully about what Jesus came to the earth for, right? Luke 4:43 King James Version (KJV) And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent. So, once again, I assume that you preach the good news of God's coming kingdom when you talk to people, at every opportunity. Right? You have read about the good news, right? Now, if you need any details on ANY of these subjects, please, I ask you, let me know. I assure you I can fill you in, Biblically. And yes, at times, I have a tendency to be obnoxious, but ain't nobody ever said I was insecure!! I've read it cover to cover, along with two other bible versions. As well as numerous other "holy" books.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#14. To: X-15 (#12)
You are correct in this. But, not as to what they used in those days, long before the so-called New Testament was available, and Scriptures make this very clear to us. Acts 8:30 King James Version (KJV) 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias (Isaiah), and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Acts 8:35 King James Version (KJV) 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. So what Scriptures was Philip using, in this clear demonstration in the Bible? The New Testament? 2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: When the letter 2 Timothy was written, what Scriptures existed and were being used that this notice had to be made? Romans 15:4 King James Version (KJV) For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. And in Romans, is it the so-called New Testament that is being talked about? In Luke 4:17 Jesus read from the roll of the prophet Isaiah. Is this roll in the New Testament? If it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me. Jesus also quoted from Isaiah, by name, in Matthew 15:7. And Paul the Apostle quoted from Isaiah, again by name, in Romans 15:12. The Bible does not have two sections. It is a complete whole, and can not be divided into two pieces, with full understanding. BUT, the so-called orthodox churches can not teach what they teach if you are familiar with the entirety of the Holy Scriptures. If you care to understand what Jesus said about the religious leaders of his day, simply study Matthew 23. Quite clear, it is. They were able to be Christians because they belonged to the Church which existed before the New Testament existed and has frequently been forced to make do with no written copies in whole areas due to persecution or poverty.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#15. To: randge, pablo (#10)
Show me one, please,... This should be interesting :) but the contradictions remain.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#16. To: pablo, all (#13)
Pablo, when locals see you coming do they run and hide ? Do you go around knocking on doors and hand out tracts, badgering those with a different view or opinion ? The thing that most bothers me about know it all Christians is that they really don't know it all but feel a need (obsession) to shoe horn others into their version of "truth" and it goes on ad nauseum. There are many brilliant and spiritual men that have diverse opinions of Biblical truths. Most often, according to my own observations, these debates grind on and on without resolving the mysteries of God. In most instances I see men as liars (because that's what Scripture calls them) simply because they don't know the whole truth, not because they want to lie. Lastly, there are many self-righteous, know-it-alls, trying to remove the splinter in other people's eye (and you know the rest). God is treated as an invalid by most of these reformed sinners having become preachers. These proselytizer's are usually obnoxious to the point of terminating the spiritual interest others have because they bombard their intended convert with dogmatic doctrinal bullshit that makes their head hurt and act as if the Almighty Creator of the universe is helpless to instruct His children without the assistance of a busy-body pulpit pounding evangelist. I'd have to admit that I personally find it counter-productive when I see someone turned off to learning about Scripture in their own way and with God's guiding Spirit by a self-inflated ego-freak that thinks he/she knows something that others must know in lock-step with the doctrine of this or that church, which is likely a 501(C)(3) Tax Exempt Corporation. Last of all, most of the 4UM members are senior citizens and have surely anticipated departing this life in a serious manner. If they choose to study Scripture surely God will bless their honest desire to learn of Him. Anyway, I'll just go along quietly now and pray for the sake of Christ you'll let go and let God before you convince someone here that no matter what they'll never have a true understanding of God's plan for them - unless it's your understanding. 
"Bankers" - Kill em all and let Satan sort em out" !!!
#17. To: pablo (#10)
Yes, once you take thinking out of the mix, you can swallow anything whole - even the Koran. As far as contradictions go, a scrupulous observer could easily point out hundreds, but I am an rank amateur, and I'll suffice it to say that there are errors of corroboration between the Gospels in the genealogies, the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection just to name a few instances. The reported facts just do not add up when perused by a disinterested reader. Not only do you have a host of issues that the new testament authors bequeathed us in their inattention to detail, but they also left us a host of issues over which believers continue to stand at sword's points: free will, redemption, the natures of God and Christ & so forth. There's another list that goes on and on and on. Not that the OT is any better. Indeed, it may well surpass the NT in its ahistoricity and internal contradictions, but I don't slice the cheese that fine because I don't take this stuff very seriously any more. It is only of historical interest to me. Show me one, please, cause I have studied it rather extensively, and I have never found one..... once I took man's teachings/thinking out of the mix.
#18. To: pablo (#13)
Beliefs are and should remain an individual concern. Your self-righteousness very off-putting. If your plan is to continue spamming 4um, I will quickly place you on the ignore list. And, I do my best to be obedient to Jesus. Can you say the same?
the quality of a man’s life is directly proportionate to
his commitment to excellence.’
#19. To: noone222 (#16)
If you will look at what I am posting, you will find that it is almost all Scriptures; not opinions. I have used a couple of articles by men who are will known and very learned in what they have studied. I am also well aware of what Jesus said on this matter. Matthew 7:13 King James Version (KJV) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Pretty clear, and the vast majority of so-called Christians live as they wish, do what they wish, and believe in the same basic dogma that came out of Babylon long before Jesus walked the earth. For that reason, he gave us another witness to what is to happen; Matthew 24:37 King James Version (KJV) But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Again, something that is pretty clear. You can find the same events and conditions happening on the earth now, as there was going on in the days of Noah. Tell me, out of the millions of people alive on the earth in those days, how many lived through the flood? 8. Pretty small percentage. How many will live through the Great Tribulation? See Revelation 7:13,14. More, but still a small percentage. However, that being said, Jesus also said that most would not listen. Why? Because the Bible is not real/important to them, and neither is our Heavenly Father. See John 15:21, then read Matthew 7:21,22,23. Please. Why? 2 Timothy 3:5 answers that. unless it's your understanding.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#20. To: X-15 (#12)
And the other problem with this is that this is in violation of Galatians 6:5. This is a personal responsibility, because it creates a personal relationship with our Heavenly Father. If one's presuppositions are leading one to conclusions that differ from those of the early Church, one needs to change one's presuppositions. The simplest and safest way to do this is to learn and obey the tradition of the Church.
Isaiah 48:17 brings understanding to the Bible
#21. To: pablo (#19)
"Bankers" - Kill em all and let Satan sort em out" !!!
#22. To: Obnoxicated, all (#5)
This is that Jehovah Witness kook richard1951. New name, same old BS. it's best to just ignore him. He will give up and go away just like he did last time he was here.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#23. To: pablo, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, (#4)
And, according to the Encyclopedia of Christian religions, there are actually just over 41,000 so-called Christian churches. Exactly as Jesus foretold. Oh, really?? Please name the verse where Jesus says exactly "41,000" churches. I missed that one. Probably not, as hell does not exist.
-Alex Kurtagic
#24. To: X-15 (#23)
Oh, really?? Please name the verse where Jesus says exactly "41,000" churches. I missed that one. so did i. I do know He said He hoped we would be one as He and His Father are One..."that the world may believe you [God] sent me [Christ]". Of COURSE the devil would try to defeat that by inventing a bazillion sects to divide and conquer. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Jesus also said to Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees, though, and that His kingdom [and churches] would be full of it, before He did some surgery. [Matthew 13/Luke 13]. So the devil's plan was carried out by his minions. "...Speeches delivered at the B'nai B'rith Convention in Paris explain Luther's changed attitude toward "Jews": "As long as there remains among the Gentiles any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come . . . And the Gentiles, in their stupidity, have proved easier dupes than we expected them to be. One would expect more intelligence and more practical common sense, but they are no better than a herd of sheep. Let them graze in our fields till they become fat enough to be worthy of being immolated to our future King of the World . . . We have founded many secret associations, which all work for our purpose, under our orders and our direction. We have made it an honor, a great honor, for the Gentiles to join us in our organizations (such as Masonry), which are, thanks to our gold, flourishing now more than ever. Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our plot, should never know that those associations are of our creation, and that they serve our purpose. One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of the Jews; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King of the World . . . We have induced some of our children to join the Christian Body, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the Christian Church, by creating scandals within her. We have thus followed the advice of our Prince of the Jews, who so wisely said: 'Let some of your children become cannons, so that they may destroy the Church.' Unfortunately, not all among the 'convert' Jews have proved faithful to their mission. Many of them have even betrayed us! But, on the other hand, others have kept their promise and honored their word. Thus the counsel of our Elders has proved successful. We are the Fathers of all Revolutions, even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War. We can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation. Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends unknowingly, and again, by Jewish authority, and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success. But unfortunately he discovered the deception, and became a threat to us, so we disposed of him as we have so many others who dare to oppose us . . . (Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh, p. 248: 'The origin of Calvin' (whose real name was Chauvin). See also: Lucin Wolf, in Transactions, Jewish Historical Society of England, Vol. XI, p. 8; Goris, Les Colonies Marchandes Meridionales à Anvers; Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, III, 413). Many countries, including the United States have already fallen for our scheming. But the Christian Church is still alive . . . We must destroy it without the least delay and without the slightest mercy. Most of the Press in the world is under our Control; let us therefore encourage in a still more violent way the hatred of the world against the Christian Church. Let us intensify our activities in poisoning the morality of the Gentiles. Let us spread the spirit of revolution in the minds of the people. They must be made to despise Patriotism and the love of their family, to consider their faith as a humbug, their obedience to their Christ as a degrading servility, so that they become deaf to the appeal of the Church and blind to her warnings against us. Let us, above all, make it impossible for Christians to be reunited, or for non-Christians to join the Church; otherwise the greatest obstruction to our domination will be strengthened and all our work undone. Our plot will be unveiled, the Gentiles will turn against us, in the spirit of revenge, and our domination over them will never be realized. Let us remember that as long as there still remain active enemies of the Christian Church, we may hope to become Master of the World . . . And let us remember always that the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown . . . " (London Catholic Gazette, February, 1936; and in Paris Le Reveil du Peuple). luther.htm..." www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm ========================== "....It is certain that Senator Joseph McCarthy did much research on the Communist conspiracy. He came too close when he discovered British Israel and its Kingdom Message propaganda. The following quotes are from an article with the title: GEORGE WASHINGTON'S SURRENDER: "And many of the people of the land became Jews." Esther 9:17. "The confession of General Cornwallis to General Washington at Yorktown has been well hidden by historians. History books and text books have taught for years that when Cornwallis surrendered his army to General Washington that American independence came, and we lived happily ever after until the tribulations of the twentieth century." "Jonathan Williams recorded in his LEGIONS OF SATAN, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown." Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self contradiction: "Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry." And indeed George Washington himself was a Mason, and he gave back through a false religion what he had won with his army. "Cornwallis well knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of world catastrophe that would be universal and that unrest would continue until mind control could be accomplished through a false religion. What he predicted has come to pass. A brief sketch of American religious history and we have seen Masonry infused into every church in America With their veiled Phallic religion. "Darby and the Plymouth Brethren brought a Jewish Christianity to America. Masons Rutherford and Russell started Jehovah Witnesses' Judaism which is now worldwide with their message of the divine kingdom. Mason Joseph Smith started Mormon Judaism with its Jewish teaching of millennialism. "At the turn of the twentieth century there appeared the Scofield Bible with a Jewish interpretation of the prophecies. With wide use of this "helpful" aid all the American churches have silently become synagogues. We now have Baptist Jews, Methodist Jews, Church of God Jews, apostate Catholic Jews, and many Protestant Jews throughout America. We are aliens in our own country because of false religion. All are praying for divine deliverance into that "Divine Government" which Cornwallis knew to be the British Empire. "A false religion has been used to deceive us into allegiance to our enemies of Yorktown and Bunker Hill. No! Not a gun has been fired but the invisible and malignant process of conquering America with the Jew's religion has gone on unabated. The Union Jack has been planted in our hearts with religious deception. All has happened "legally," "constitutionally," "freely" and completely within our most sacred trust -- our churches. Religious deception is painless innoculation against truth. It cannot be removed from the conscience with surgery, yet it is the motivator of our actions and directly controls our lives. Once man gives over to false religion, he is no longer rational because he originates no thought. His life is controlled by whomever controls his religion. "The veil of false religion is the sword of Damocles and its power to control humanity defies even the imagination of tyrants who use it."...." according to the Encyclopedia of Christian religions, there are actually just over 41,000 so-called Christian churches. Exactly as Jesus foretold.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#25. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#24)
That's the gospel truth!! ...all the American churches have silently become synagogues. We now have Baptist Jews, Methodist Jews, Church of God Jews, apostate Catholic Jews, and many Protestant Jews throughout America. We are aliens in our own country because of false religion.
-Alex Kurtagic
#26. To: X-15 (#25)
To be sung to the tune of I am a prisoner of the Jews
Ruby (Don't take your love to town)
or something like that.
I sing his songs and pay his dues
I'd walk away if I could choose
But I'm a prisoner of the Jews.
#27. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, Obnoxicated, pablo, all (#22)
Richard1951 was a JW.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#28. To: pablo (#3)
Not really. Quite interesting verses, are they not?
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
#29. To: X-15 (#25)
Tell them you worship the devil and they'll look at you funny. Tell them whites have a right to their own neighborhoods, schools, cities, and countries and you ARE the devil. So who do they really worship? That's the gospel truth!!
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
#30. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#29) (Edited)
"In the 60s, Nietzsche’s death of God caught up to the Episcopalians who made up the American ruling class. They could no longer believe the old mythologies: Adam and Eve, original sin, blood atonement, all that medieval bs. But they couldn’t give up the religion that they grew up in, with the community fellowship, the memories of church hayrides, etc. So they looked in the mirror and said: “What can I feel guilty about, now that I’ve rejected the reality of Adam’s sin, so I can keep being a Christian. Aha! I’m white, male, and Christian. I will feel guilty for being white, male, and Christian.” "It is obvious that there is no alternative to embracing the ethno-nationalism that the Bible prescribes as normative. Europe was made great through the adherence to God’s law in all things, including ethno-nationalism. We have fallen far from our previous civilization which was evident only a number of decades ago. During the 1960s, the culturally-Marxist “civil rights movement” carried us toward the unbiblical idea of “equal rights” and away from God’s law."
-Alex Kurtagic
#31. To: X-15 (#30)
bullshit
Does anyone honestly believe that the global elites whose wealth and power depend on manipulation of the global chess board would leave something like the Presidency up to chance?
#32. To: farmfriend (#31)
LOL!! I wondered how long I could keep that hanging out there before somebody noticed.
-Alex Kurtagic
#33. To: pablo (#10) (Edited)
Show me one, please, cause I have studied it rather extensively, and I have never found one..... once I took man's teachings/thinking out of the mix. I love the King James too. It is my favorite, but I like to see the other interpretations as well. When in doubt, I always check the concordance as well. I showed you one contradiction on another site, where the parents of Samson asked the "Angel" [the preincarnate Jesus] what His name was. And He said why do you ask my name ... it is Wonderful, the same Hebrew word used for "wonderful", as in Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born....and His name shall be called Wonderful,...the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. King James translates Wonderful as "secret". Why? Seeing Samson was of the apostate Tribe of Dan, I suspect they might pull that one out again as the "eneffable name" of Judeo-Freemasonry. Look up "Jesuits in Great Britain" at reformation.org. Turns out, James' REAL father was a Jesuit that James' mother was consorting with. The Jesuits are crypto-Jews. James, says this article, was a closet Catholic trying to make Britain Catholic again. Interesting if true, wouldn't you say? Thank God for Rev. Hunt [The Enduring Legacy of the First Landing wnd.com]. They were told to set up camp far inland [later called Jamestown after the king]. Rev. Hunt and his little mustard seed of people got out before then, and claimed America for Christ [Psalm 2:6, Micah 4:1-2, Ezekiel 34:11-13/John 10 etc etc etc], at Cape Henry, and symbolically, the spot is imprisoned in a military fort there. Zechariah 2: Deliver thyself O Zion, dwelling with the daughter of Babylon. Micah 4:13 Arise and thresh.... but the contradictions remain.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#34. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#33) (Edited)
We know of course that James I governed Britain as a protestant king independently of Rome, and we can see that the profession below wherein James calls himself a catholic Christian is to be taken in a general, historical sense. However, I am curious to know, ATKHWDI, since you are more erudite in these matters than I am, can you deduce these big C, Catholic leanings from his writings?? I will never be ashamed to render an accompt of my profession and of that hope that is in me, as the Apostle prescribeth. I am such a CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN as believeth the three Creeds, that of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice, and that of Athanasius, the two latter being paraphrases to the former. And I believe them in that sense as the ancient Fathers and Councils that made them did understand them, to which three Creeds all the ministers of England do subscribe at their Ordination. And I also acknowledge for Orthodox all those other forms of Creeds that either were devised by Councils or particular Fathers, against such particular heresies as most reigned in their times. I reverence and admit the Four First General Councils as Catholic and Orthodox. And the said Four General Councils are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for orthodox by our Church. As for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more than the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved. For whatever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did with an unanime consent agree upon, to be believed as a necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the same. But for every private Father's opinion, it binds not my conscience more than Bellarmine's, every one of the Fathers usually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case follow St. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions as I find them agree with the Scriptures. What I find agreeable thereto I will gladly embrace. What is otherwise I will (with their reverence) reject. As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth I will believe them. But even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same accompt that the Ancients did. They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our churches. I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men. But since they are not found in the Canon, we accompt them to be secundae lectionis or ordinis (which is Bellarmine's own distinction) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any Article of Faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonical Scripture; concluding this point with Rufinus (who is no Novelist, I hope) that the Apocryphal books were by the Fathers permitted to be read, not for confirmation of doctrine, but only for instruction of the people. As for the Saints departed, I honour their memory, and in honour of them do we in our Church observe the days of so many of them as the Scripture doth canonize for saints; but I am loath to believe all the tales of the legended saints. And first for the Blessed Virgin Mary, I yield her that which the Angel Gabriel pronounced of her, and which in her Canticle she prophecied of herself, that is, That she is blessed among women, and That all generations shall call her blessed. I reverence her as the Mother of Christ, of whom our Saviour took His flesh, and so the Mother of God, since the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confess that she is in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is both God and man) only excepted. But I dare not mock her, and blaspheme against God, calling her not only Diva but Dea, and praying her to command and control her Son, Who is her God and her Saviour. Nor yet not, I think, that she hath no other thing to do in Heaven than to hear every idle man's suit and busy herself in their errands, whiles requesting, whiles commanding her Son, whiles coming down to kiss and make love with priests, and whiles disputing and brawling with devils. In Heaven she is in eternal glory and joy, never to be interrupted with any worldly business; and there I leave her with her blessed Son, our Saviour and hers, in eternal felicity. As for prayer to Saints, Christ, I am sure, hath commanded us to come all to Him that are loaden with sin, and He will relieve us; and St. Paul hath forbidden us to worship angels, or to use any such voluntary worship, that hath a shew of humility in that it spareth not the flesh. But what warrant we have to have recourse unto these Dii Penates or Tutelares, these Courtiers of God, I know not; I remit that to these philosophical Neoteric Divines. It satisfieth me to pray to God through Christ, as I am commanded, which I am sure must be the safest way; and 1 am sure the safest way is the best way in points of salvation. But if the Romish Church hath coined new Articles of Faith, never heard of in the first 500 years after Christ, 1 hope 1 shall never be condemned for an heretic, for not being a Novelist. Such are the Private Masses, where the Priest playeth the part both of the Priest and of the People. And such are the Amputation of the one half of the Sacrament from the people; the Transubstantiation, Elevation for Adoration, and Circumportation in procession of the Sacrament; the Works of Supererogation, rightly named Thesaurus Ecclesiae; the Baptizing of Bells and a thousand other tricks, but above all, the Worshipping of Images. If my faith be weak in these, I confess I had rather believe too little than too much. And yet since I believe as much as the Scriptures do warrant, the Creeds do persuade, and the ancient Councils decreed, I may well be a schismatic from Rome, but I am sure I am no heretic. For Relics of Saints, If I had any such I were assured were members of their bodies, I would honourably bury them and not give them the reward of condemned men's members, which are only ordained to be deprived of burial. But for worshipping either them or images, I must account it damnable idolatry. I am no Iconomachus. I quarrel not with the making of images, either for public decoration or for men's private uses. But that they should be worshipped, be prayed to, or any holiness attributed unto them, was never known of the ancients. And the Scriptures are so directly, vehemently, and punctually against it, as I wonder what brain of man or suggestion of Satan durst offer it to Christians. And all must be salved with nice philosophical distinctions as Idolunt nihil est; and They worship (forsooth) the Images of things in being and the Image of the true God. But the Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of anything that God created. It was not a nihil then that God forbade only to be worshipped, neither was the Brazen Serpent nor the body of Moses a nihil; and yet the one was destroyed and the other hidden for eschewing of idolatry. Yea, the Image of God Himself is not only expressly forbidden to be worshipped, but even to be made. The reason is given, That no eye ever saw God; and how can we paint His Face, when Moses (the man that was ever most familiar with God) never saw but His back parts? Surely, since He cannot be drawn to the vive, it is a thankless labour to mar it with a false representation; which no Prince, nor scarcely any other man, will be contented with in their own pictures. Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day, when He shall accuse them of idolatry. And then I doubt if He will be paid with such nice sophistical distinctions.... As for Purgatory, and all the trash depending thereupon, it is not worth the talking of; Bellarmine cannot find any ground for it in all the Scriptures. Only I would pray him to tell me, If that fair green meadow that is in Purgatory have a brook running through it, that in case I come there I may have hawking upon it. But as for me, I am sure there is a Heaven and a Hell, praenium et poena, for the Elect and Reprobate; how many other rooms there be, I am not on God His council. Multae sunt mansiones in domo Patris mei, ["there are many mansions in my father's house"] saith Christ, Who is the true purgatory for our sins. But how many chambers and ante-chambers the Devil hath, they can best tell that go to him. But in case there were more places for souls to go to than we know of, yet let us content us with that which in His Word He hath revealed unto us, and not inquire further into His secrets. Heaven and Hell are there revealed to be the eternal home of all mankind. Let us endeavour to win the one and eschew the other; and there is an end. Now in all this discourse have I yet left out the main article of the Romish faith, and that is, the Head of the Church or Peter's Primacy; for who denieth this, denieth fidem Catholicam [The catholic faith], saith Bellarmine. That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I ever maintained it as an Apostolic institution and so the ordinance of God,contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that Bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God. (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritans' part, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-Papists.) And as I ever maintained the state of Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy for order sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my Basilikon Archon. Heaven is governed by order, and all the good angels there. Nay, Hell itself could not subsist without some order. And the very devils are divided into legions and have their chieftains. How can any society, then, upon earth subsist without order and degrees? And therefore I cannot enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say, That I was a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Protestants, - I that was persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but even since four months before my birth? I that in the year of God 84 [1584] I erected Bishops and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not 18 years of age? I that in my said Book to my Son do speak ten times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists, having in my second edition thereof affixed a long Apologetic Preface, only in odium Puritanorum? And I that for the space of six years before my coming into England laboured nothing so much as to depress their parity and re-erect Bishops again? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in Scotland were written (as Julius Caesar's were) there would scarcely a month pass in all my life, since my entering into the thirteenth year of my age, wherein some accident or other would not convince the Cardinal of a lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans in that place of my book, where I affirm that I have found greater honesty with the highland and border thieves than with that sort of people. But leaving him to his own impudence, I return to my purpose. Of Bishops and Church Hierarchy I very well allow (as I said before) and likewise of ranks and degrees amongst bishops. Patriarchs I know were in the time of the Primitive Church, and I likewise reverence that institution for order sake; and amongst them was a contention for the first place. And for myself (if that were yet the question) I would with all my heart give my consent that the Bishop of Rome should have the first seat; I being a Western King would go with the Patriarch of the West. And for his temporal principality over the Signory of Rome, I do not quarrel it either. Let him in God His Name be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos ["first bishop among all bishops"], and Princeps Episcoporum [Prince of bishops] so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum. But as I well allow of the hierarchy of the Church for distinction of orders (for so I understand it), so I utterly deny that there is an earthly Monarch thereof, whose word must be a law, and who cannot err in his sentence, by an Infallibility of Spirit. Because earthly Kingdoms must have earthly Monarchs, it doth not follow that the Church must have a visible Monarch too. For the world hath not one earthly temporal Monarch. Christ is His Church's Monarch, and the Holy Ghost His Deputy, Reges Gentium dominants eorum, vos autem non sic. Christ did not promise before His Ascension to leave Peter with them to direct and instruct them in all things. But He promised to send the Holy Ghost unto them for that end. And as for these two before cited places, whereby Bellarmine maketh the Pope to triumph over kings, I mean Pasce oves and Tibi dabo claves, the Cardinal knows well enough that the same words of Tibi dabo are in another place spoken by Christ in the plural number. And he likewise knows what reason the ancients do give why Christ bade Peter pascere oves, and also what a cloud of witnesses there is, both of ancients, and even of late Popish writers, yea divers Cardinals, that do all agree, that both these speeches used to Peter were meant to all the Apostles represented in his person. Otherwise, how could Paul direct the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person cum spiritu suo, whereas he should then have said, cum spiritu Petri? And how could all the Apostles have otherwise used all their censures only in Christ's Name, and never a word of His Vicar? Peter, we read, did in all the Apostles' meetings sit amongst them as one of their number. And when chosen men were sent to Antiochia from that great Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv), the text saith, It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send chosen men; but no mention made of the Head thereof. And so in their Letters no mention is made of Peter, but only of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. And it is a wonder why Paul rebuketh the Church of Corinth for making exception of persons, because some followed Paul, some Apollos, some Cephas, if Peter was their visible Head! For then those that followed not Peter or Cephas renounced the Catholic Faith. But it appeareth well that Paul knew little of our new doctrine, since he handleth Peter so rudely, as he not only compareth, but preferreth, himself unto him. But our Cardinal proves Peter's superiority by Paul's going to visit him. Indeed Paul saith, He went to Jerusalem to visit Peter and confer with him. But he should have added, "And to kiss his feet." . . . Thus have I now made a free Confession of my Faith. And, I hope, I have fully cleared myself from being an Apostate; and, as far from being an heretic as one may be, that believeth the Scriptures, and the three Creeds, and acknowledgeth the four first General Councils. If I be loath to believe too much, especially of novelties, men of greater knowledge may well pity my weakness. But I am sure none will condemn me for an heretic, save such as make the Pope their God, and think him such a speaking Scripture as they can define heresy no otherwise, but to be whatsoever opinion is maintained against the Pope's definition of faith. And I will sincerely promise, that whenever any point of the Religion I profess shall be proved to be new, and not Ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic (I mean for matter of faith), I will as soon renounce it, closing up this head with the maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis, that I will never refuse to embrace any opinion in divinity necessary to salvation which the whole Catholic Church with an unanime consent have constantly taught and believed even from the Apostles' days, for the space of many ages thereafter without any interruption.James, says this article, was a closet Catholic trying to make Britain Catholic again. Interesting if true, wouldn't you say?
James I and VI: from Anglicanism, 1616
#35. To: randge (#34)
However, I am curious to know, ATKHWDI, since you are more erudite in these matters than I am, you jest. can you deduce these big C, Catholic leanings from his writings?? I'd have to read it a second time, but on the first go-round, I think I would only argue with this: I reverence her as the Mother of Christ, of whom our Saviour took His flesh, and so the Mother of God, since the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confess that she is in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is both God and man) only excepted. Technically, Mary is not the Mother of God, because Jesus Is God and He created all things in the beginning from which Mary sprung. Mary is more like the blessed vessel from which God chose to come into the world as a flesh and blood man. Christ being Father and Son, is the parent of Mary, not the other way around. John 1 >> King James Version 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. kingjbible.com/john/1.htm Matthew 12:47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."Matthew 12:49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whosoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. "Who is my mother? ... - There was no want of affection or respect in Jesus toward his mother, as is proved by his whole life. See especially Luke 2:51, and John 19:25-27. This question was asked merely to "fix the attention" of the hearers and to prepare them for the answer - that is, to show them who sustained toward him the nearest and most tender relation. To do this he pointed to his disciples. Dear and tender as were the ties which bound him to his mother and brethren, yet those which bound him to his disciples were more tender and sacred. How great was his love for his disciples, when it was more than even that for his mother! And what a bright illustration of his own doctrine, that we ought to forsake father, and mother and friends, and houses, and lands, to be his followers!...." bible.cc/matthew/12-48.htm [good commentaries. pablo should like. talks about OBEYING the sabbath. food for thought.] Other than that, I am pleasantly educated. Now in all this discourse have I yet left out the main article of the Romish faith, and that is, the Head of the Church or Peter's Primacy; for who denieth this, denieth fidem Catholicam [The catholic faith], saith Bellarmine. That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I ever maintained it as an Apostolic institution and so the ordinance of God,contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that Bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God. (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritans' part, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-Papists.) And as I ever maintained the state of Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy for order sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my Basilikon Archon. Heaven is governed by order, and all the good angels there. Nay, Hell itself could not subsist without some order. And the very devils are divided into legions and have their chieftains. How can any society, then, upon earth subsist without order and degrees? And therefore I cannot enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say, That I was a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Protestants, - I that was persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but even since four months before my birth? I that in the year of God 84 [1584] I erected Bishops and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not 18 years of age? I that in my said Book to my Son do speak ten times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists, having in my second edition thereof affixed a long Apologetic Preface, only in odium Puritanorum? And I that for the space of six years before my coming into England laboured nothing so much as to depress their parity and re-erect Bishops again? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in Scotland were written (as Julius Caesar's were) there would scarcely a month pass in all my life, since my entering into the thirteenth year of my age, wherein some accident or other would not convince the Cardinal of a lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans in that place of my book, where I affirm that I have found greater honesty with the highland and border thieves than with that sort of people. But leaving him to his own impudence, I return to my purpose. Very Interesting! The king and I stand on common ground here on our opinions of the Puritans [who, imo, were crypto-Jews, the proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing]. I guess the crypto-Jews didn't give up on controlling the throne, just because James's father was killed. Think of this, the Pilgrims/Puritans/Separatists [btw, the definition of a pharisee is a religious separatist] came over here in 1620. I read several years ago that the talmudists were working on something called Justice 2020. I could never find much on it. I just did another search, and things are starting to appear, such as: Justice 2020 JUSTICE 2020 AND VISION 2020 ARE BASED ON TALMUD THE ... World Day of Social Justice 2020 - Worldwide - 20-02-2020 - Event ... World Day for International Justice 2020 - Worldwide - 17-07-2020 ... I haven't read any of them yet...just saying. I am filing this one for more research. Thanks. We know of course that James I governed Britain as a protestant king independently of Rome, and we can see that the profession below wherein James calls himself a catholic Christian is to be taken in a general, historical sense.
www.azcourts.gov/Justice2020/ Strategic Agenda for the Judicial Branch of Arizona.
groups.google.com/group/total_truth.../aca3aa7fd895ff8d
Dec 25, 2010 ... Justice 2020 Image removed by sender. Strategic Agenda for the Judicial Branch ...
www.zapaday.com/event/207/9/World+Day+of+Social+Justice.html
World Day of Social Justice. ... National Days Breadcrumb UN Observances. World Day of Social Justice 2020. Thursday 20 February 2020 2668 days from now ...
www.zapaday.com/.../World%20Day%20for%20International%20Justice.html Jul 12, 2012 ... World Day for International Justice | The World Day for International Justice, also referred to as Day of International Criminal Justice or ...
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#36. To: pablo (#10) (Edited)
Show me one, please, cause I have studied it rather extensively, and I have never found one..... once I took man's teachings/thinking out of the mix. I thought you might be interested in the following. I am still studying it. I disagree with their take on premillennialism vs. amillennialism, however I find their dissertation on other errors interesting. The name "Jehovah" is covered. APPENDIX III "Shock & Awe" in the KJV-Only Camp "TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION WHICH AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE PROPHECY The King James Version contains certain translation and textual errors which will facilitate a global transition from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of the Antichrist. This addendum hopes to present information which will enable the reader to understand what the Gnostic doctrine teaches and which mistranslations in the KJV support these errors. Coupled with the fact that the KJV will be interpreted according to “letter meaings” and “bible codes” purported to be contained in the text, it behooves Christians to undertake an objective evaluation of the KJV, as they should do with all translations in their language. The fact that foreign language translations are now, for the most part, translated from the KJV rather than the Greek Textus Receptus, makes this report equally relevant to non-English speaking Christians who use foreign translations. We do not believe that the Translators of the KJV intended to mistranslate important words that will affect the interpretation of end-time prophecy. All of these translation and textual errors predated the 1611 KJV and can be traced through successive English translations which, according to King James’ instructions, were “to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” The mischief appears to have originated with the Wycliffe translation, although one major error was inserted in a later edition of the KJV. Whatever the various reasons for these mistranslations in the King James Version, they needed to be corrected and, in every case, the New King James Version made the necessary corrections. The fact that a large network of KJV-Only defenders have made it their profession to misrepresent, not only these translation and textual errors, but hundreds of others, as accurate translations of the Greek Textus Receptus, while they tout the KJV as God’s perfect Word and condemn the NKJV as a Satanic version, and allow no one to update or correct the KJV – not to mention their suppression of vital information (e.g. the Translators’ Preface), their manipulation of textual data, their frequent misquoting of sources, their distortion of history and lies without end – in short, their thoroughly deceitful treatment of the Bible version issue, makes it difficult to resist the suspicion that King James Onlyism has a sinister interest in preserving these translation and textual errors in the Bible. It must be emphasized that these mistranslations did not originate with the King James Version but in the Wycliffe translation, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, the Wycliffe translation carried a greater number of these corruptions than the Vulgate which is not surprising considering the evidence that John Wycliffe and the Lollard Knights were agents of the Rosicrucians. (See Chapter 19: “The Lollard Movement: John Wycliffe” and preceding sections.) In the following report, we have analyzed certain translation and textual errors in the King James Version which may be used to promote the false gospel of the Antichrist. In this analysis, each KJV error is compared with the Greek Textus Receptus, readings in English translations before 1611, also the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta and the Septuagint when applicable, and the NKJV. We have included other relevant information, such as the origin and history of the word (Etymology) and the pagan meaning and associations of the word (Mythology), to show the potential problems with these mistranslations in the end time deception. Textual errors in the KJV are also included, that is instances where the KJV fails to translate a word that is in the Greek text, thereby giving opportunity for a false interpretation of the verse....." watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html =============== edit: " "SHOCK & AWE" IN THE KJV-ONLY CAMP When we first took a stand for the King James Bible many years ago, it never occurred to us that “King James-Only” meant “no Greek and no Hebrew.” It was upon reading Gail Riplinger’s book, IN AWE OF THY WORD, that we discovered that the term “KJV-Only” was to be taken literally. It means that the King James Bible alone is divinely inspired, perfect and superior to all other translations and texts, including the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. We have been, and always will be “Textus Receptus Only,” and we mistakenly assumed that this was also the position of the leadership of the KJV-Only movement. Our discovery that this was not the case compelled us to write this lengthy expose of the heresy in Gail Riplinger’s book and other false teachings in King James Onlyism ~ which we now understand is an important component of the conspiracy to eliminate the Christian Bible, especially the New Testament, in all of its expressions. " http://watch.pair.com/ but the contradictions remain.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#37. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#36)
and the battle rages on. What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? [i haven't read it]
www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God ... Changed words like this make a great deal of difference in how we understand a passage. ...
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#38. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#35)
Very interesting, and you see, I do not jest. since Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-Papists Can you explain this statement somewhat? I do not get it.
#39. To: randge (#38) (Edited)
well, i can't speak for king james, but i think he is putting them all in the same bag. i believe that jesuits [crypto-jews]were created by the catholic church in response to the reformation. [btw, i canNOT in any sense of the word be considered an expert in any of this]. i also believe the catholic church was created in response to the early christian church...if you can't beat them, join them, and destroy them from within. also, islam was created by the catholic church. martin luther was apparently raised up by the jews to divide and conquer further. when he went to translte the bible into german, he thought he'd take a look at the talmud to get the jews' input. when he saw the talmud, he recognized it for the work of the devil....and "discovered their plot" as the b'nai b'rith speech put it. calvin was a jew. his (?) geneva bible was apparently the bible that first settled america. The Geneva Bible - The Forgotten Translation Geneva Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia John Calvin Geneva Bible Calvin Institutes there's a lot of history in-between. watch.pair.com has the history of the anabaptists in europe, from which came the baptists, who are fervent zionists. anyway, i think james is equating the jesuits with the puritans. i came to that conclusion, although i didn't have tons of info to base it on, several years ago while researching the first virginia charter of 1606, which led me to the charter of the puritans/pilgrims. i am sure the history has been pretty well=scrubbed, but from what i could tell there was friction between the first colony and the second colony, and it sounds like the first colony might even have been burning down the churches[synagogues?] of the northern colony. not too long afterward, the northern colony relinquished their charter to the king. you have to see the first charter. the second colony settled within the bounds of the first colony..... "....our Will and Pleasure is, and we do hereby declare to all Christian Kings, Princes, and States, that if any Person or Persons which shall hereafter be of any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, or any other, by his, their, or any of their Licence and Appointment, shall, at any Time or Times hereafter, rob or spoil, by Sea or Land, or do any Act of unjust and unlawful Hostility to any the Subjects of Us, our Heirs, or Successors, or any the Subjects of any King, Prince, Ruler, Governor, or State, being then in League or Amitie with Us, our Heirs, or Successors, and that upon such Injury, or upon just Complaint of such Prince, Ruler, Governor, or State, or their Subjects, We, our Heirs, or Successors, shall make open Proclamation, within any of the Ports of our Realm of England, commodious for that purpose, That the said Person or Persons, having committed any such robbery, or Spoil, shall, within the term to be limited by such Proclamations, make full Restitution or Satisfaction of all such Injuries done, so as the said Princes, or others so complaining, may hold themselves fully satisfied and contented; And, that if the said Person or Persons, having committed such Robery or Spoil, shall not make, or cause to be made Satisfaction accordingly, within such Time so to be limited, That then it shall be lawful to Us, our Heirs, and Successors, to put the said Person or Persons, having committed such Robbery or Spoil, and their Procurers, Abettors, and Comforters, out of our Allegiance and Protection; And that it shall be lawful and free, for all Princes, and others to pursue with hostility the said offenders, and every of them, and their and every of their Procurers, Aiders, abettors, and comforters, in that behalf......" avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va01.asp i don't remember which group set out first, but do know the mayflower folks [which carried the ancestors of the bush family] got blown off course [by God?] and ended up in holland for awhile, allowing Rev. Hunt to declare America for Christ. I have wondered if the ptb realized they had made a big mistake and tried to rectify it by waging a quiet holy war against the Christian founding of the country by the northern colony. [Genesis 15:13-14,Galatians 3:16,17...29 (The Us Is Still A British Colony Extorting Taxes for the Crown)tells me we would be afflicted 400 years...I have tried to pinpoint exactly when it began. Maybe only the Father knows.] At any rate, the northern colony went back to the crown and it remained for the war of northern aggression to take back the bible belt. That's the way I see it anyway. Every once in a while I run across a little tidbit that bolsters that view. I almost, and then decided against, posting some excerpts from a very insidious site calling itself endtimepilgrim. It starts out sounding all Christian, then snakes around to Judeo-"Christianity", and how Christianity was meant to put the Jews and the "little nation of Israel" back on the throne of David, AFTER Western Christians complete "their blood covenant" with Christ, by being MARTYRED, basically for IsraHell, joining the 500 Christians a day around the world that are being martyred for that cause. [Revelation 20:7-10 (I am a partial preterist)]. I'll type some of the URL's I looked at today in case you're interested: endtimepilgrim.org/puritans10.htm endtimepilgrim.org/puritans17.htm endtimepilgrim.org/bloodcove.htm endtimepilgrim.org/millennium.htm [hope i typed them right] pure evil. king james had it right, imo oh well, i think God said something about refining His church by fire.
www.reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html
King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
The very first Bible printed in Scotland was a Geneva Bible, which was first issued in 1579. In fact, the involvement of Knox and Calvin in the creation of the ...
www.john-calvin.net/history.html - Cached
He is also the primary person behind the printing of the famous Geneva Bible. John Calvin was born “John Cauvin” on July 10, 1509 at Noyon in France.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#40. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#39)
Thanks. I'm at work, so not much time to digest this or comment, but thanks for the notes and the links!
#41. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#22)
Well, It's not a big deal. I'm in the Jehovah's Witness protection program, so I'm good for now.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest