Do you believe in god? the gods discussion thread
- Thread starter fender646
- Start date
-
- Tags
- average dating doublelongdaddy educated effective eight enormous extreme fitness gain gaining gods discussion growing hands larger loads massive masturbate methodology painful pelvis penis posts progress question research results routine sex short shrinkage skin stories stretch stretched stretching support theoretical
Hahaha
It makes me laugh when people bring up scientific facts and such.
Why do people believe what is fed to you?
Seriously the big bang "theory". It's a THEORY. Until they prove it, it's full of shit. Science thrives on the necessity to have a reason for everything.
Science has its benefits (medicine, technology) but it is not the answer to everything.
Do people seriously believe the history books given out in schools as well?
I bet you if you compare history books from different places of the world and the same events collide, you'll see that it is 2 different things.
It's funny how some atheists (not all) say some things about science and say things like "free your mind" when it's exactly the science that fed them their knowledge thus their mind being slaves to the commercialism of science.
Just believe whatever your heart tells you. Don't let people say you're going to go to hell if you don't believe in God or say things like the world started from the big bang theory. The answer is in yourself.
It makes me laugh when people bring up scientific facts and such.
Why do people believe what is fed to you?
Seriously the big bang "theory". It's a THEORY. Until they prove it, it's full of shit. Science thrives on the necessity to have a reason for everything.
Science has its benefits (medicine, technology) but it is not the answer to everything.
Do people seriously believe the history books given out in schools as well?
I bet you if you compare history books from different places of the world and the same events collide, you'll see that it is 2 different things.
It's funny how some atheists (not all) say some things about science and say things like "free your mind" when it's exactly the science that fed them their knowledge thus their mind being slaves to the commercialism of science.
Just believe whatever your heart tells you. Don't let people say you're going to go to hell if you don't believe in God or say things like the world started from the big bang theory. The answer is in yourself.
That is the most foolish thing I've ever heard. There's no such thing as half stepping. His belief was made out of either fear or trying to create a win-win situation which is made out of selfishness.
You either believe or you don't. It's all or nothing.
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
I don't know what you are saying Bob... I don't understand many things and the things I want to understand I work at and the things I don't, I don't worry about. Not to argue with you, but don't put words in my mouth.
Perhaps I don't articulate like you think I should or to even make myself clear to you. I will try and do better.
Let me rephrase that...The Bible has not been disproven. When I say I don't worry about that which I don't understand I am saying that many things I trust, believe what may have been proven, I might not understand all the aspects. I am a ham radio operater and got my license years ago when it was much simpler than today. Much to the technology of today I don't understand. Don't worry about it and don't really care, but I still enjoy the privlege of using the radio. If that helps you to know what I mean, then I hope I am getting it across. To disprove something and have criteria for it is really very objective. You might not agree with my criteria for believing and I might not agree with your criteria for disbelieving. Something has to be a standard or set boundry. So, before we can debate any issue we have to come to some conclusion as to what is the standard. So many people have pre set standards or whatever you would call them but they are faulty so the results of the proof or disproof are also faulty. Regarding God: You might say, God, if you are real, knock me down....and wait a few minutes and say, see, God didn't knock me down, so there must not be a God. That doesn't prove anything. Why should God knock you down. What would be the purpose. And, who is to say that He won't or can't.
Regarding the Bible: I believe it is truth. Now go from there. If it is truth, then it will reveal truth. It is a history of Israel and God's dealing with that people. It is a record/account of creation and you or I can't disprove it. Go ahead and try and disprove it. Go ahead and attack God. If the Bible won't stand your attack or God won't meet the challenge then I am wrong.
By the way, I understand that you don't believe in God. I may be wrong, so if you do, then I apoligize. But if you don't believe in God, then I have a challenge for you. First, I don't believe there is any man alive that does not know there is God. You can say what you will and write all you want but I don't believe in your heart of hearts, down inside you know there is God. Now, here is my challenge. I know a man that reports that he has over the years given thousands of ploygraph tests. I can supply his name to you. He has reported that one of his test questions is: Do you believe in God. No one, absolutely no one ever, so he says, has ever passed the test. All fail. Take a polygraph test and see what you really do believe. That is a criteria. Might not be a good one. You might not agree, but it is a thought. Thanks for listening. GS Spellcheck isn't working, so forgive the spelling errors
Perhaps I don't articulate like you think I should or to even make myself clear to you. I will try and do better.
Let me rephrase that...The Bible has not been disproven. When I say I don't worry about that which I don't understand I am saying that many things I trust, believe what may have been proven, I might not understand all the aspects. I am a ham radio operater and got my license years ago when it was much simpler than today. Much to the technology of today I don't understand. Don't worry about it and don't really care, but I still enjoy the privlege of using the radio. If that helps you to know what I mean, then I hope I am getting it across. To disprove something and have criteria for it is really very objective. You might not agree with my criteria for believing and I might not agree with your criteria for disbelieving. Something has to be a standard or set boundry. So, before we can debate any issue we have to come to some conclusion as to what is the standard. So many people have pre set standards or whatever you would call them but they are faulty so the results of the proof or disproof are also faulty. Regarding God: You might say, God, if you are real, knock me down....and wait a few minutes and say, see, God didn't knock me down, so there must not be a God. That doesn't prove anything. Why should God knock you down. What would be the purpose. And, who is to say that He won't or can't.
Regarding the Bible: I believe it is truth. Now go from there. If it is truth, then it will reveal truth. It is a history of Israel and God's dealing with that people. It is a record/account of creation and you or I can't disprove it. Go ahead and try and disprove it. Go ahead and attack God. If the Bible won't stand your attack or God won't meet the challenge then I am wrong.
By the way, I understand that you don't believe in God. I may be wrong, so if you do, then I apoligize. But if you don't believe in God, then I have a challenge for you. First, I don't believe there is any man alive that does not know there is God. You can say what you will and write all you want but I don't believe in your heart of hearts, down inside you know there is God. Now, here is my challenge. I know a man that reports that he has over the years given thousands of ploygraph tests. I can supply his name to you. He has reported that one of his test questions is: Do you believe in God. No one, absolutely no one ever, so he says, has ever passed the test. All fail. Take a polygraph test and see what you really do believe. That is a criteria. Might not be a good one. You might not agree, but it is a thought. Thanks for listening. GS Spellcheck isn't working, so forgive the spelling errors
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
i see people were interested in pascal's wager . . . good deal.
i hope they read a little further and read what i think of it, but whatever. for the record, even though i disagree with pascal's personal philosophies, he was extraordinarily brilliant, a true blue genius and scholar of the highest achievement.
i won't waste a bunch of space sticking up for science, i'll just repeat what i said before: science is a method of inquiry, and it's an open system, subject to change and improvement. that's why i like it, it doesn't proclaim to be the truth, just the best explanation we have worked out. it's not anecdotal, it doesn't rely on "it just is" type explanations, it's simply a body of knowledge derived from a system of inquiry and testing for reliability. you don't have to have faith in the knowledge that science has produced, but you do have to agree with the principles behind the proccess (and generally i think it's a pretty good process. see that computer in front of you? logged onto the internet? god didn't teleport the schematics for that baby into somebody's head).
i honestly like religion, i think it's fascinating, and it is a key component of human society. i don't believe in it, but i don't begrudge anyone who does. the only thing i don't care for is when one side, athiest or religious, or between different religions, tries to impress their ideas on others or force people to subscribe to their beliefs. however, i think debating it is great. people that don't examine their views lead empty lives, and nothing is worth believing in (or not believing in) if it isn't worth questioning. perhaps if we could come to a reasonable conclusion about the existence of god we could ponder how he feels about Penis Enlargement? if i thought there was a god you better believe i would ask him why i wasn't born with 8X6!
i hope they read a little further and read what i think of it, but whatever. for the record, even though i disagree with pascal's personal philosophies, he was extraordinarily brilliant, a true blue genius and scholar of the highest achievement.
i won't waste a bunch of space sticking up for science, i'll just repeat what i said before: science is a method of inquiry, and it's an open system, subject to change and improvement. that's why i like it, it doesn't proclaim to be the truth, just the best explanation we have worked out. it's not anecdotal, it doesn't rely on "it just is" type explanations, it's simply a body of knowledge derived from a system of inquiry and testing for reliability. you don't have to have faith in the knowledge that science has produced, but you do have to agree with the principles behind the proccess (and generally i think it's a pretty good process. see that computer in front of you? logged onto the internet? god didn't teleport the schematics for that baby into somebody's head).
i honestly like religion, i think it's fascinating, and it is a key component of human society. i don't believe in it, but i don't begrudge anyone who does. the only thing i don't care for is when one side, athiest or religious, or between different religions, tries to impress their ideas on others or force people to subscribe to their beliefs. however, i think debating it is great. people that don't examine their views lead empty lives, and nothing is worth believing in (or not believing in) if it isn't worth questioning. perhaps if we could come to a reasonable conclusion about the existence of god we could ponder how he feels about Penis Enlargement? if i thought there was a god you better believe i would ask him why i wasn't born with 8X6!
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
oh yeah . . .
loner j - no need to call other people's opinions laughable, unless you don't mind having it done to you i suppose. for the record, yes, the big bang is a theory. so is the concept of techtonic plates . . . but just because you can't see them sliding around do you deny that earthquakes happen and continents move? background radiation in the universe can be traced using hignly complicated methods i do not understand, but i do know that the scientific community pretty much agrees as whole thate radiation waves create a reliable time frame and point of origin for the universe.
the "laughable" scientists, with their sili doctorates and triflingly prolific bodies of research don't claim to know why there was big bang or what existed before it, but it seems quite clear it occurred, based on all the information we currently have.
how does variety of historical interpretation have anything to do with science?
how is science commercial?
how is believing in science anymore close-minded than believing in anything else?
what if you believe in scientific explanations because you have evaluated the other options carefully and found science preferable?
socrates was the wisest man in athens because he knew that he was not . . .
loner j - no need to call other people's opinions laughable, unless you don't mind having it done to you i suppose. for the record, yes, the big bang is a theory. so is the concept of techtonic plates . . . but just because you can't see them sliding around do you deny that earthquakes happen and continents move? background radiation in the universe can be traced using hignly complicated methods i do not understand, but i do know that the scientific community pretty much agrees as whole thate radiation waves create a reliable time frame and point of origin for the universe.
the "laughable" scientists, with their sili doctorates and triflingly prolific bodies of research don't claim to know why there was big bang or what existed before it, but it seems quite clear it occurred, based on all the information we currently have.
how does variety of historical interpretation have anything to do with science?
how is science commercial?
how is believing in science anymore close-minded than believing in anything else?
what if you believe in scientific explanations because you have evaluated the other options carefully and found science preferable?
socrates was the wisest man in athens because he knew that he was not . . .
I was watching a educational documentary on PBS, called the Elegant Universe, the other day and they were talking about the exploration of space and other shit.
On the show they talk about the string theory which basically is that if you disect an atom to its smallest form you will find its made of up of vibrating circular "strings". This is pretty breakthrough because scientists cant disprove it right now.
It also talks about everything in the universe is relative and can be predicted and explained with 2 theories. One theory, known as General Relativty, is used to predict and describe big things like stars and galaxies and figure out why they do the things they do. Why the Earth rovolves around the sun. (oh yeah its because the sun disrupts the "space fabric" and draws things in its wave. Imagine an apple, the sun, is in the middle of a bedsheet.)
The second theory is Quantum Mechanics which is used in describing small things like atoms and subatomic particles. Which is used here on earth and cant yet be disproven.
Both theories exist together but not inconjunction with each other. General Relativity cant explain small things and vice versa. But scientist believe there is one theory that could combine these two into one universal theory that can be used from a sun drawing planets closer and a glass falling on the floor.
Im not trying to teach you guys anything but the point of this is you will never be able to explain anything by believing in some religious, superstitious, brainwashing, rederic propaganda. Everything can be explained, you just need you want to face truth.
Oh yeah and to whoever said "Why do people believe what is fed to you?". You should take some of your own fuckin advice and reject the mind control thats been programmed into your head.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/about.html
On the show they talk about the string theory which basically is that if you disect an atom to its smallest form you will find its made of up of vibrating circular "strings". This is pretty breakthrough because scientists cant disprove it right now.
It also talks about everything in the universe is relative and can be predicted and explained with 2 theories. One theory, known as General Relativty, is used to predict and describe big things like stars and galaxies and figure out why they do the things they do. Why the Earth rovolves around the sun. (oh yeah its because the sun disrupts the "space fabric" and draws things in its wave. Imagine an apple, the sun, is in the middle of a bedsheet.)
The second theory is Quantum Mechanics which is used in describing small things like atoms and subatomic particles. Which is used here on earth and cant yet be disproven.
Both theories exist together but not inconjunction with each other. General Relativity cant explain small things and vice versa. But scientist believe there is one theory that could combine these two into one universal theory that can be used from a sun drawing planets closer and a glass falling on the floor.
Im not trying to teach you guys anything but the point of this is you will never be able to explain anything by believing in some religious, superstitious, brainwashing, rederic propaganda. Everything can be explained, you just need you want to face truth.
Oh yeah and to whoever said "Why do people believe what is fed to you?". You should take some of your own fuckin advice and reject the mind control thats been programmed into your head.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/about.html
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 137
Bible History 102:
Few Christians ever research or care where their "Word of God" came from. The "Word of God" has been changed, adjusted and rewritten many times over the centuries, and the prudent Christian needs to know the history of his book, and must be careful in his choice translation. The history of the Bible is quite sordid actually, and even todays versions are quite different from each other. So here I present the History of the Bible 102 (the next installment will trace the origins of the original manuscripts - Bible 101):
(Text from www.biblestudy.org)
What is wrong with modern translations of the Bible like the New International Version? Why have Catholics fought and defended their translation of the Bible since the Middle Ages? Does it really MATTER what translation we use to study what God has to say to us?
If you believe that the Pope is the vicar of Christ, the rightful successor of the apostles, then you will like the New International Version of the Bible. Currently, the NIV outsells all other English Bibles, including the venerable Authorized King James Version. It has been a struggle for centuries, but, finally, we have a dominant English Bible that supports Catholic doctrines. How did this happen?
What are modern translations based on?
Origen (A.D. 184-254), one of the most famous "Church fathers," was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, and all modern versions, are based. He tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy. Adam Clarke says Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, " are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced fifty copies of a Latin version, at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important. Modern versions are based on the Vaticanus Manuscript (Codex B), and the Sinaiticus Manuscript (Codex Aleph), which are of the Eusebio-Origen type. Many authorities believe they were actually two of the fifty Constantine Bibles.
The Catholic Latin Bible
The Bishop of Rome needed a Bible version to keep the newly-converted pagans from northern Europe suBathmateissive to such doctrines as papal supremacy, transubstantiation, purgatory, celibacy of the priesthood, vigils, worship of relics, and the burning of daylight candles. Therefore, he turned to Jerome, a renowned scholar, to produce the authoritative Catholic Latin Bible. Jerome perused the library of Eusebius at Caesarea, where Origen's manuscripts had been preserved, along with a Greek Bible of the Vaticanus type. Both of these versions had the apocrypha, which Protestants reject as spurious (Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, 1st and 2nd Maccabees). Jerome, however, included them in his Vulgate of A.D. 338. For one thousand years, Jerome's Vulgate dominated Western Europe. Only the pesky Waldenses in the Alps, and the original Celtic Church of Britain, rejected the Vulgate. Even Catholic scholars pointed out the thousands of errors in the corrupt Vulgate, but there were few to challenge the Catholic Bible of Jerome.
When the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, Greek Orthodox scholars fled with copies of the original Greek New Testaments, and some of them came into Europe. Erasmus (1516) and other scholars such as Stephens (1550) printed copies of the Greek New Testament, and it became obvious that the Vulgate, based on corrupted Greek texts of the Vaticanus order, had strayed far from the Received Text.
Catholics Defend their Bible translation
Luther, Calvin, and the Protestant Movement had engulfed northern Europe, and threatened to take France and even parts of Italy away from the Papacy. Luther's German Bible was based on the same Greek Text printed by Erasmus. The Catholic Church was running scared, and launched a massive counter reformation. First, the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, was formed with the express purpose to destroy Protestants and their Bibles based on the Received Text. Jesuits were, and are, bound with an oath to defend the papacy, to lie, steal, assassinate, or do whatever it takes to destroy heretics. The famous Council of Trent, 1545-1563, condemned four anti-Catholic principles which were gaining ground at that time:
"That Holy Scriptures contained all things necessary for salvation, and that it was impious to place apostolic tradition on a level with Scripture," "That certain books accepted as canonical in the Vulgate were apocryphal and not canonical," "That Scripture must be studied in the original languages, and that there were errors in the Vulgate," "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit."
The Catholic Church first tried to undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant doctrines. The Catholic-Protestant controversy was basically a battle for the Bible.
William Tyndale translated Erasmus's Greek Text into English. To counter this version, the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church sponsored the 1582 Rheims-Douay version, based on the Vulgate, in order to push Catholic control of the British Isles. In spite of the Spanish Armada and infiltrating Jesuits, English Protestantism stood firm against the wiles of Rome. A more readable English translation appeared in 1611, at the behest of King James. It has been called the most beautiful piece of literature in any language, and for 300 years served as a bulwark against the papacy.
When Napoleon's armies conquered Rome in the early 1800s, it appeared that the Holy Roman Empire and the power of the papacy was dead. In reality, it was only wounded, and would soon come back to life. Again, the battle for the Bible would be the key struggle.
J.H. Newman founded the Oxford Movement in 1833. Originally of the Church of England, Newman promoted Catholic ideas within the Anglican Church. Newman's Roman theology took over Oxford, the bastion of the Anglican Church. When he traveled to Rome in 1833, he asked the Pope upon what terms the Church of Rome could receive back the Church of England to her bosom. The answer was: accept the doctrine of the Council of Trent! Newman and his associates believed that Protestantism, not Catholicism, was the Antichrist. Newman's enormous influence in Britain led many to doubt the veracity of the Authorized Bible, as he preferred the Vulgate. Using the allegorizing method of Origen, Newman declared that God never intended the Bible to teach doctrines, and that Church tradition was equal to or better than the Bible. Newman studied Catholic fathers and Gnostics night and day. In 1845 he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic Cardinal.
Cardinal Newman greatly influenced the British revision committees, which were packed with higher critics and Catholic- leaning individuals such as Westcott, Hort, and others. Westcott's Greek New Testament was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. Dr. Philip Schaff, who headed the American Bible revision committee, was a friend of Newman, and was on such good terms with the papacy that he sought and obtained unusual privileges to study Vatican documents, receiving almost unrestricted access to the Vatican Library and Archives. As a result, the 1881 Revised English Version was met with rejoicing among Catholics, as a vindication of their Rheims-Douay version based on the Vulgate. Blow after blow, the new English version supported the doctrines of Rome.
An example is Revelation 22:14. In the King James, this verse is, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life," while the Revised version says, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life." The New International Version likewise used "wash their robes," rather than "do His commandments."
Another example is Mark 7:18-19. In the King James, we have, "Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" The bodily digestive system digests food, using nutrients for the body, and eliminates the waste products. Food does not pollute the mind.
In their attack against the law of clean and unclean meats, the Revised and NIV translations, based on minority Greek texts, translate this passage so as to do away with God's law. "'Are you so dull?' he asked. 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')," Mark 7:18-19, NIV.
Translation after translation has since followed. All packed in favor of the corrupt texts from Origen and others who had mangled the Word of God. Now the field of victory belongs to the Catholic Church.
Only two types of Bibles
There are actually only two types of Bibles, those based on the majority of the Greek manuscripts, and those based on texts from Egypt and Rome. The early Syrian Church had the Bible translated into Syrian about A.D. 150. This version is known as the Peshitto (meaning "correct," or "simple"). Even today, it generally follows the Received Text. Early Latin translations of the Bible were used in the British Isles, northern Italy, and southern France, long before these primitive Christians came into contact with the Church of Rome. Called the "Italic" or Old Latin version, the Waldenses in particular resisted the Vulgate as being spurious. Until at least the late thirteenth century, the Waldensian version held out strongly against the Vulgate. The fourth century scholar Helvidius, of northern Italy, accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek manuscripts. Waldensians in the Alps claimed their church began about A.D. 120, and their Italic Bible was said to be translated directly from the Greek no later than A.D. 157. Allix reports that the Italic Church of the Waldenses receive only "what is written in the Old and New Testament. They say, that the Popes of Rome, and other priests, have depraved the Scriptures by their doctrines and glosses."
The promulgation of the Received Text is largely the work of the Waldenses. John Calvin was a relative to Waldenses in the valley of St. Martin. Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor, translated the Received Text into French, later edited by his relative Calvin. The Olivetan became the basis of the Geneva Bible in English, the leading version in England in 1611 when the KJV appeared.
The two-thousand-year-old contest between the Church of Rome and those she calls "heretics," is basically a battle for the Bible. When you see a church that abandons the King James Version and begins to uphold the New International Version or other modern perversions of the scriptures, you know which side they are on.
If you believe that the Pope is an Antichrist, and you are in absolute opposition to the Council of Trent, then you stand with the historic teaching of the Waldenses, and the Church of the East. You appreciate the King James Bible, and others based on the Received Text.
Benjamin G. Wilkinson's excellent book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, originally published in 1930, provides much of the information covered in this article. This special book is available from: Giving & Sharing. Wilkinson shows how text after text has been perverted by the modern revised versions, which are based on corrupted Greek manuscripts. This is not a peripheral issue, but an essential core concept. If you believe modern higher critics, who believe in evolution as Hort did, then you do not have the reliable Word of God, and there is no basis for the Biblical faith.
The Bible says that the "little horn," would "cast down the truth to the ground," Daniel 8:11. Jesus said in John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." Modern translations which pervert the Word of God are a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. You do not need to go through a priest or hierarchy to have contact with the Almighty. The Savior reminds us, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," John 6:63.
Peter Ruckman, a Baptist preacher, has in recent years created a twisted concept known as "King James Version Onlyism." He teaches that the KJV is error free, is the ONLY Word of God, and that all other translations are of the devil. He plays into the hands of Romanists by his absurd extremism. The King James does not always stick to the Textus Receptus. The KJV does have errors, some of which are corrected in modern versions such as the NIV (e.g. Acts 12:4, where the KJV erroneously has "Easter," while the NIV and modern versions, and the Textus Receptus, have "Passover"). The Battle for the Bible should stick to a discussion of the merits of the two competing streams of Greek texts of the New Testament: the Textus Receptus (majority Greek texts), and the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (Origen, Westcost and Hort) text.
Wilkinson provides many comparisons that leave us no doubt that the Textus Receptus is better.
Few Christians ever research or care where their "Word of God" came from. The "Word of God" has been changed, adjusted and rewritten many times over the centuries, and the prudent Christian needs to know the history of his book, and must be careful in his choice translation. The history of the Bible is quite sordid actually, and even todays versions are quite different from each other. So here I present the History of the Bible 102 (the next installment will trace the origins of the original manuscripts - Bible 101):
(Text from www.biblestudy.org)
What is wrong with modern translations of the Bible like the New International Version? Why have Catholics fought and defended their translation of the Bible since the Middle Ages? Does it really MATTER what translation we use to study what God has to say to us?
If you believe that the Pope is the vicar of Christ, the rightful successor of the apostles, then you will like the New International Version of the Bible. Currently, the NIV outsells all other English Bibles, including the venerable Authorized King James Version. It has been a struggle for centuries, but, finally, we have a dominant English Bible that supports Catholic doctrines. How did this happen?
What are modern translations based on?
Origen (A.D. 184-254), one of the most famous "Church fathers," was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, and all modern versions, are based. He tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy. Adam Clarke says Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, " are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced fifty copies of a Latin version, at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important. Modern versions are based on the Vaticanus Manuscript (Codex B), and the Sinaiticus Manuscript (Codex Aleph), which are of the Eusebio-Origen type. Many authorities believe they were actually two of the fifty Constantine Bibles.
The Catholic Latin Bible
The Bishop of Rome needed a Bible version to keep the newly-converted pagans from northern Europe suBathmateissive to such doctrines as papal supremacy, transubstantiation, purgatory, celibacy of the priesthood, vigils, worship of relics, and the burning of daylight candles. Therefore, he turned to Jerome, a renowned scholar, to produce the authoritative Catholic Latin Bible. Jerome perused the library of Eusebius at Caesarea, where Origen's manuscripts had been preserved, along with a Greek Bible of the Vaticanus type. Both of these versions had the apocrypha, which Protestants reject as spurious (Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, 1st and 2nd Maccabees). Jerome, however, included them in his Vulgate of A.D. 338. For one thousand years, Jerome's Vulgate dominated Western Europe. Only the pesky Waldenses in the Alps, and the original Celtic Church of Britain, rejected the Vulgate. Even Catholic scholars pointed out the thousands of errors in the corrupt Vulgate, but there were few to challenge the Catholic Bible of Jerome.
When the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, Greek Orthodox scholars fled with copies of the original Greek New Testaments, and some of them came into Europe. Erasmus (1516) and other scholars such as Stephens (1550) printed copies of the Greek New Testament, and it became obvious that the Vulgate, based on corrupted Greek texts of the Vaticanus order, had strayed far from the Received Text.
Catholics Defend their Bible translation
Luther, Calvin, and the Protestant Movement had engulfed northern Europe, and threatened to take France and even parts of Italy away from the Papacy. Luther's German Bible was based on the same Greek Text printed by Erasmus. The Catholic Church was running scared, and launched a massive counter reformation. First, the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, was formed with the express purpose to destroy Protestants and their Bibles based on the Received Text. Jesuits were, and are, bound with an oath to defend the papacy, to lie, steal, assassinate, or do whatever it takes to destroy heretics. The famous Council of Trent, 1545-1563, condemned four anti-Catholic principles which were gaining ground at that time:
"That Holy Scriptures contained all things necessary for salvation, and that it was impious to place apostolic tradition on a level with Scripture," "That certain books accepted as canonical in the Vulgate were apocryphal and not canonical," "That Scripture must be studied in the original languages, and that there were errors in the Vulgate," "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit."
The Catholic Church first tried to undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant doctrines. The Catholic-Protestant controversy was basically a battle for the Bible.
William Tyndale translated Erasmus's Greek Text into English. To counter this version, the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church sponsored the 1582 Rheims-Douay version, based on the Vulgate, in order to push Catholic control of the British Isles. In spite of the Spanish Armada and infiltrating Jesuits, English Protestantism stood firm against the wiles of Rome. A more readable English translation appeared in 1611, at the behest of King James. It has been called the most beautiful piece of literature in any language, and for 300 years served as a bulwark against the papacy.
When Napoleon's armies conquered Rome in the early 1800s, it appeared that the Holy Roman Empire and the power of the papacy was dead. In reality, it was only wounded, and would soon come back to life. Again, the battle for the Bible would be the key struggle.
J.H. Newman founded the Oxford Movement in 1833. Originally of the Church of England, Newman promoted Catholic ideas within the Anglican Church. Newman's Roman theology took over Oxford, the bastion of the Anglican Church. When he traveled to Rome in 1833, he asked the Pope upon what terms the Church of Rome could receive back the Church of England to her bosom. The answer was: accept the doctrine of the Council of Trent! Newman and his associates believed that Protestantism, not Catholicism, was the Antichrist. Newman's enormous influence in Britain led many to doubt the veracity of the Authorized Bible, as he preferred the Vulgate. Using the allegorizing method of Origen, Newman declared that God never intended the Bible to teach doctrines, and that Church tradition was equal to or better than the Bible. Newman studied Catholic fathers and Gnostics night and day. In 1845 he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic Cardinal.
Cardinal Newman greatly influenced the British revision committees, which were packed with higher critics and Catholic- leaning individuals such as Westcott, Hort, and others. Westcott's Greek New Testament was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. Dr. Philip Schaff, who headed the American Bible revision committee, was a friend of Newman, and was on such good terms with the papacy that he sought and obtained unusual privileges to study Vatican documents, receiving almost unrestricted access to the Vatican Library and Archives. As a result, the 1881 Revised English Version was met with rejoicing among Catholics, as a vindication of their Rheims-Douay version based on the Vulgate. Blow after blow, the new English version supported the doctrines of Rome.
An example is Revelation 22:14. In the King James, this verse is, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life," while the Revised version says, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life." The New International Version likewise used "wash their robes," rather than "do His commandments."
Another example is Mark 7:18-19. In the King James, we have, "Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" The bodily digestive system digests food, using nutrients for the body, and eliminates the waste products. Food does not pollute the mind.
In their attack against the law of clean and unclean meats, the Revised and NIV translations, based on minority Greek texts, translate this passage so as to do away with God's law. "'Are you so dull?' he asked. 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')," Mark 7:18-19, NIV.
Translation after translation has since followed. All packed in favor of the corrupt texts from Origen and others who had mangled the Word of God. Now the field of victory belongs to the Catholic Church.
Only two types of Bibles
There are actually only two types of Bibles, those based on the majority of the Greek manuscripts, and those based on texts from Egypt and Rome. The early Syrian Church had the Bible translated into Syrian about A.D. 150. This version is known as the Peshitto (meaning "correct," or "simple"). Even today, it generally follows the Received Text. Early Latin translations of the Bible were used in the British Isles, northern Italy, and southern France, long before these primitive Christians came into contact with the Church of Rome. Called the "Italic" or Old Latin version, the Waldenses in particular resisted the Vulgate as being spurious. Until at least the late thirteenth century, the Waldensian version held out strongly against the Vulgate. The fourth century scholar Helvidius, of northern Italy, accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek manuscripts. Waldensians in the Alps claimed their church began about A.D. 120, and their Italic Bible was said to be translated directly from the Greek no later than A.D. 157. Allix reports that the Italic Church of the Waldenses receive only "what is written in the Old and New Testament. They say, that the Popes of Rome, and other priests, have depraved the Scriptures by their doctrines and glosses."
The promulgation of the Received Text is largely the work of the Waldenses. John Calvin was a relative to Waldenses in the valley of St. Martin. Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor, translated the Received Text into French, later edited by his relative Calvin. The Olivetan became the basis of the Geneva Bible in English, the leading version in England in 1611 when the KJV appeared.
The two-thousand-year-old contest between the Church of Rome and those she calls "heretics," is basically a battle for the Bible. When you see a church that abandons the King James Version and begins to uphold the New International Version or other modern perversions of the scriptures, you know which side they are on.
If you believe that the Pope is an Antichrist, and you are in absolute opposition to the Council of Trent, then you stand with the historic teaching of the Waldenses, and the Church of the East. You appreciate the King James Bible, and others based on the Received Text.
Benjamin G. Wilkinson's excellent book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, originally published in 1930, provides much of the information covered in this article. This special book is available from: Giving & Sharing. Wilkinson shows how text after text has been perverted by the modern revised versions, which are based on corrupted Greek manuscripts. This is not a peripheral issue, but an essential core concept. If you believe modern higher critics, who believe in evolution as Hort did, then you do not have the reliable Word of God, and there is no basis for the Biblical faith.
The Bible says that the "little horn," would "cast down the truth to the ground," Daniel 8:11. Jesus said in John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." Modern translations which pervert the Word of God are a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. You do not need to go through a priest or hierarchy to have contact with the Almighty. The Savior reminds us, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," John 6:63.
Peter Ruckman, a Baptist preacher, has in recent years created a twisted concept known as "King James Version Onlyism." He teaches that the KJV is error free, is the ONLY Word of God, and that all other translations are of the devil. He plays into the hands of Romanists by his absurd extremism. The King James does not always stick to the Textus Receptus. The KJV does have errors, some of which are corrected in modern versions such as the NIV (e.g. Acts 12:4, where the KJV erroneously has "Easter," while the NIV and modern versions, and the Textus Receptus, have "Passover"). The Battle for the Bible should stick to a discussion of the merits of the two competing streams of Greek texts of the New Testament: the Textus Receptus (majority Greek texts), and the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (Origen, Westcost and Hort) text.
Wilkinson provides many comparisons that leave us no doubt that the Textus Receptus is better.
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
Your statement or the one you pasted says this: "The KJV does have errors, some of which are corrected in modern versions such as the NIV (e.g. Acts 12:4, where the KJV erroneously has "Easter," while the NIV and modern versions, and the Textus Receptus, have "Passover"). The Battle for the Bible should stick to a discussion of the merits of the two competing streams of Greek texts of the New Testament: the Textus Receptus (majority Greek texts), and the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (Origen, Westcost and Hort) text. "
People are quick to attack the Bible and I accept that, but the arguement is let the Bible defend itself. Taking verses out of context is often a way some try and prove the Bible Wrong. The context of this passages quoted above shows that there is an answer. Passover is wrong, Easter is right. Here is the reason.
It has been a question asked by many: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"? Here is the answer: No, "pascha" is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.
The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".
Coming to the word "Easter" in the Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. They are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.
This is where the problem seems to arise: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of "pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, and King James Bible has the correct reading.
To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must look at the context. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. Keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).
Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.
This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."
Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."
Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles."
Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.
II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."
Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel."
We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun ". He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
Thus we see that the translators of the Bible were CORRECT to translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover..
This is taken from a book boy Sam Gipp called THE ANSWER BOOK. I have edited it for use on this forum. Forgive the length. We are quick to believe what people write and often slow to study and find an answer. Thanks again for listening. GS
People are quick to attack the Bible and I accept that, but the arguement is let the Bible defend itself. Taking verses out of context is often a way some try and prove the Bible Wrong. The context of this passages quoted above shows that there is an answer. Passover is wrong, Easter is right. Here is the reason.
It has been a question asked by many: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"? Here is the answer: No, "pascha" is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.
The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".
Coming to the word "Easter" in the Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. They are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.
This is where the problem seems to arise: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of "pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, and King James Bible has the correct reading.
To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must look at the context. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. Keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).
Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.
This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."
Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."
Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles."
Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.
II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."
Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel."
We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun ". He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
Thus we see that the translators of the Bible were CORRECT to translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover..
This is taken from a book boy Sam Gipp called THE ANSWER BOOK. I have edited it for use on this forum. Forgive the length. We are quick to believe what people write and often slow to study and find an answer. Thanks again for listening. GS
whoa i missed out, this was a good debate. well i think everyone should read the bible, just for its philosophical value, by the same token everyone should eastern religions, even if your a devout christian, you will be a better person for it. and as for the information provided by nexus on relativistic quantum physics. i suggest everyone interested reads the tao of physics. you will learn a good amount of theoretical physics, and eastern mysticism, and parallels between them. not to say it proves it, im not trying to convert anyone. But its thought provoking. I dont believe that god created us, but no one will ever prove where the universe came from, bc you have to either believe A. the underlying quantum field that everything you percieve is a manifestation of including the dimension of time, is just here and always has, and theres no reason or explanation for it, it just exists, and thats it. or B. God made it. or C. somewhere in this very intangible theoretical realm of science there is proof that nothingness came about after trillions of zillions of years, even though time is an arbitrary and relative constant, that didnt even exist yet. or some other lame theory.
Anyways u see what i mean, i believe in evolution and all that other crap, but why is any of it here. basically A or B pick whichever one makes you happy.
Anyways u see what i mean, i believe in evolution and all that other crap, but why is any of it here. basically A or B pick whichever one makes you happy.
I hate when some people believe in religion just because they fear God and they fear the unknown. Im not talking about anyone here though.
Whats wrong with saying I dont know and only time will tell?
So live life to its fullest.
I bet God wouldnt like the fact that we Penis Enlargement because thats not natural and not the way he made us. I mean your not even supposed to jerk-off.
Religion teaches kindness to your fellow man, which is good. But I think people should be good to each other for other reasons. And not because its the "Christian" thing to do.
I think we will one day find out the meaning of everything. We just need to fund research more or better. I got a hunch that this endless quest to find meaning might just be that life is really meaningless. All you gotta do is enjoy the finer things in life that make if beautiful. Like Penis Enlargement, sex, music, friends, laughter, entertainment, family, love,....the list goes on and on.....
Whats wrong with saying I dont know and only time will tell?
So live life to its fullest.
I bet God wouldnt like the fact that we Penis Enlargement because thats not natural and not the way he made us. I mean your not even supposed to jerk-off.
Religion teaches kindness to your fellow man, which is good. But I think people should be good to each other for other reasons. And not because its the "Christian" thing to do.
I think we will one day find out the meaning of everything. We just need to fund research more or better. I got a hunch that this endless quest to find meaning might just be that life is really meaningless. All you gotta do is enjoy the finer things in life that make if beautiful. Like Penis Enlargement, sex, music, friends, laughter, entertainment, family, love,....the list goes on and on.....
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
Hey NeXus, you wrote:
I bet God wouldnt like the fact that we Penis Enlargement because thats not natural and not the way he made us. I mean your not even supposed to jerk-off.
And, what makes you say that? You must have a reason for believing this or saying it. I honestly want to know what reason you have. GS
I bet God wouldnt like the fact that we Penis Enlargement because thats not natural and not the way he made us. I mean your not even supposed to jerk-off.
And, what makes you say that? You must have a reason for believing this or saying it. I honestly want to know what reason you have. GS
Well as you may or may not know, I dont really believe in religion. Im not saying I dont believe in a creator, but I dont think he writes books like the Bible which is man-made.
Lets say Catholism is the "right" religion. The Pope tells us not to have pre-marital sex and not to masturbate and blah, blah, blah.
All Im sayin is, if that were the case, God probably wouldnt like Penis Enlargement because we are changin ourself and its not natural. And most of us use Penis Enlargement to enhance sex, which is only supposed to be w/ a wife of holy marriage. I bet every one of us has had pre-marital sex. According to God, thats a sin. And we use Penis Enlargement to enhance and enjoy this "sin".
Lets say Catholism is the "right" religion. The Pope tells us not to have pre-marital sex and not to masturbate and blah, blah, blah.
All Im sayin is, if that were the case, God probably wouldnt like Penis Enlargement because we are changin ourself and its not natural. And most of us use Penis Enlargement to enhance sex, which is only supposed to be w/ a wife of holy marriage. I bet every one of us has had pre-marital sex. According to God, thats a sin. And we use Penis Enlargement to enhance and enjoy this "sin".
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
Hi NeXus, I find it very interesting that many of our thoughts about God are based on religion. I do understand what you say but the Pope and Catholic teachings but remember, they don't necessaryily reflect the thinking of God. So, when we think that this or that teaching is God, we now base our like or dislike of God based on man's teaching. It is a big circle that ends up a mess. I obviously disagree that the bible is man made, rather it says it is God breathed, or inspired by God, written by men. Supposedly men wrote what God told them to write. Anyway, that is another subject.
About improving ourselves, be it by Penis Enlargement or some other area, what is wrong with that? Why would God tell you you can't improve yourself. You you have an arm that doesn't work right be it from a birth problem or an accident and you work to improve the arm, so you can better work your arm, why would God object to that. Our concept of God is warped. At least I think it is. I don't see anything in the Bible that tells me not to improve myself or even masterbate. The passage about Onan is misunderstood and misinterpreted so that is not a valid passage. About pre marital sex...that is an individual thing. God gives some guidelines and principles that will help man in his life. You can choose to not do them and the results you obtain are yours and can't be blamed on God. The bible in one of the commandments says that we should not commit adultry. The reason is for the unity in the home. A home can't be stable if the man or woman are out there swapping spouses. Some might be able to do it, but most can't so to maintain a home or marriage, this principle is one God says you would be wise to follow. It is not any different than obeying traffic laws. For the good and safety of others, you are better if you obey. If you don't, and you drive through stop signs and someone gets killed or in an accident, others as well as you, bear the brunt or hurt from disobeying the principles or rules. Thou shalt not steal is another. What kind of a society would we have if we just take what we want. The laws of the land forbid stealing. Go ahead and steal, but pay the price or cost of your disobeying. It is not God who punished you. You can't blame God when you get caught for stealing and put in the jailhouse. God told you not to do it and if you do, you will not contribute to the well being of society. Sex and God is a big subject but any or most of His rules, laws or what ever you want to call them are not for getting his Favor or blessing, but to keep you out of trouble. I personally didn't have premarital sex, not that I didn't want to, but just didn't. The wife and I been married 41 years and faithful to each other. I would say it has been a good match. We are bonded together. Why she has put up with me all these years is beyond me, but we decided together that would be the way it is. She keeps me happy and I keep her happy so we don't have a sexual desire to go elsewhere. I do Penis Enlargement to make myself a better lover and keep her happy, and it is working. Again, I don't believe youare are going to find any statements that you apease God or met His requirements or obtain His merit when you to do this or that for HIM. Keeping my marrige together is a goal I have and I chose to obey some of the rules of the Bible for that purpose. There are a lot of dietary laws in the Bible too, that are for man's betterment. They don't say you are to do this to merit God's favor, they are for your betterment. I don't necessaryily agree or disagree. I sure don't keep them. I personally like some of the food God says in the diet sections that would be better not to eat. So, if I have a problem it is my problem, not God's. Why blame God, and I am not saying that you are, but many do blame God for what we set ourselves up and get. This is the end of this long post: God has made full complete provison for us to be at peace with Him, but it surely isn't via anything that we do. If it was our efforts, we would never make it, but it is by his grace and love. The God of the Bible is not the God of religion or the God of man's making. Again, thanks for listening. GS
About improving ourselves, be it by Penis Enlargement or some other area, what is wrong with that? Why would God tell you you can't improve yourself. You you have an arm that doesn't work right be it from a birth problem or an accident and you work to improve the arm, so you can better work your arm, why would God object to that. Our concept of God is warped. At least I think it is. I don't see anything in the Bible that tells me not to improve myself or even masterbate. The passage about Onan is misunderstood and misinterpreted so that is not a valid passage. About pre marital sex...that is an individual thing. God gives some guidelines and principles that will help man in his life. You can choose to not do them and the results you obtain are yours and can't be blamed on God. The bible in one of the commandments says that we should not commit adultry. The reason is for the unity in the home. A home can't be stable if the man or woman are out there swapping spouses. Some might be able to do it, but most can't so to maintain a home or marriage, this principle is one God says you would be wise to follow. It is not any different than obeying traffic laws. For the good and safety of others, you are better if you obey. If you don't, and you drive through stop signs and someone gets killed or in an accident, others as well as you, bear the brunt or hurt from disobeying the principles or rules. Thou shalt not steal is another. What kind of a society would we have if we just take what we want. The laws of the land forbid stealing. Go ahead and steal, but pay the price or cost of your disobeying. It is not God who punished you. You can't blame God when you get caught for stealing and put in the jailhouse. God told you not to do it and if you do, you will not contribute to the well being of society. Sex and God is a big subject but any or most of His rules, laws or what ever you want to call them are not for getting his Favor or blessing, but to keep you out of trouble. I personally didn't have premarital sex, not that I didn't want to, but just didn't. The wife and I been married 41 years and faithful to each other. I would say it has been a good match. We are bonded together. Why she has put up with me all these years is beyond me, but we decided together that would be the way it is. She keeps me happy and I keep her happy so we don't have a sexual desire to go elsewhere. I do Penis Enlargement to make myself a better lover and keep her happy, and it is working. Again, I don't believe youare are going to find any statements that you apease God or met His requirements or obtain His merit when you to do this or that for HIM. Keeping my marrige together is a goal I have and I chose to obey some of the rules of the Bible for that purpose. There are a lot of dietary laws in the Bible too, that are for man's betterment. They don't say you are to do this to merit God's favor, they are for your betterment. I don't necessaryily agree or disagree. I sure don't keep them. I personally like some of the food God says in the diet sections that would be better not to eat. So, if I have a problem it is my problem, not God's. Why blame God, and I am not saying that you are, but many do blame God for what we set ourselves up and get. This is the end of this long post: God has made full complete provison for us to be at peace with Him, but it surely isn't via anything that we do. If it was our efforts, we would never make it, but it is by his grace and love. The God of the Bible is not the God of religion or the God of man's making. Again, thanks for listening. GS
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 983
I couldn't have said it better myself! :D
I haven't bothered to read through all of these posts, and even though I could write a full ten page essay on my personal beliefs I'll spare you the trouble of having to read it. I think there's enough material here on this subject already.
Let's just say that I don't believe in the bible or the version of christianity that it promotes.Nor do I believe in the god of any other religion, because IF an almight creator of time and space exists, there can only be one of his/her/its kind.
You know what they say, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely it is they will be religious. It is just plain stupid to live your whole life in guilt and fear over some concept that man himself has created.
And just think for a second about the universe as a whole. There MUST be thousands if not millions of civilizations much more advanced than us out there somewhere (who knows, maybe they have indeed visited us here already).
Again, IF there is a god, then it is the same god for all of us. Human and alien alike. And he/she/it is certainly not something that should be worshipped, or feared, or loved for that matter.
Such a god, or should I say the working wheels of the very fabric of reality, must have a broad perspective on things, and I doubt he reaches out to individual people or life forms. I mean let's face it: we humans are merely ants in the cosmic order of things. God won't reach out to us. He has bigger fish to fry.
GODDAMNIT, I ended up ranting even though I promised myself I'd keep this short! :fight:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 20,066
I agree with you - One god for the Universe.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I am atheist, but it is irrelevant.
Even If someone could prove that God did exist, I still would not worship him. I am an individualist and I reject self sacrifice.
Even If someone could prove that God did exist, I still would not worship him. I am an individualist and I reject self sacrifice.
Similar threads
