02 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't want you to remain ignorant, so I will try to educate you. I could do
It is all but certain the central dogma's ofChristianity (Which should really be called Paulism) was based on earlier religions. I saw with my own eyes in Cairo, in the wonderful museum there, the 7 day creation story, for instance, in 3000 + year old cartouche drawings, which laid it out almost word for word the Genesis fairy tale of creation.
I saw th e living in the fields? There sure would not have been much for a flock to eat in December.
a better job if I could talk to you in person. What appears to you as a fairy
tale is artwork of ancient people depicting, as best they could, how they
believed the world began. People all over the world have distortions of the
story of creation, which should be understandable to any reasonable person.
Have you studied these accounts to see how they agree and how they differ?
Does any of them give an account were all creatures evolved from one
common ancestor? If you don't know, I would advice that you research it.
Of course the Holy Bible teaches us that Jesus was born in the Spring of the
year at the time of the Passover. But when the Roman Catholic Church was
being formed after the Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity, practically
all the Christians were Gentiles. The earlier and more knowledgeable Jewish
Christians had been martyred or died of some other cause. So there was a
flood of pagans suddenly wanting to be considered Christians just like their
Emperor. The pagan religions became obsolete and the pagan temples were
converted to Christian houses for worship. In the process the winter soltice,
which is the birth of the sun in the pagans sun god worship and a big festival
time, was adopted as the birth of the Son of God to keep the overwhelming
number of pagans entering the church, happy. Those in authority did not
know enough to do otherwise and it just so happened that the Julian calendar
was in use at that time and the date came on December 25.
But any similarities to the pagan triad of gods does not negate the fact that
Jesus was the first to introduce the Holy Spirit and the idea of a Godhead of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Paul taught what he had learned
from Jesus and the other disciples and mentions the word "godhead" but
not "trinity" because there was no such word; until, Tertuillian came up with
it in the latin form, in the late 2nd century, to go along with his compilation
of the saying in the scripture on what he believed described three person in
one God. This was met with opposition and was not accepted and declared
official church doctrine until the 4th century, however. But the ideas came
from Jesus not pagan religions.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been changing texts in
what a scammer, changing texts to read 'theos' instead of hos, downright underhanded and dithpicable!
the scriptures for over half a century either escapes your notice or
maybe, that's okay because it agrees with the theology taught by them.
Right?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsProvide supporting data, which your claim is blissfully free of.
So the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been changing texts in
the scriptures for over half a century either escapes your notice or
maybe, that's okay because it agrees with the theology taught by them.
Right?
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by BadwaterIf you really want the proof, just get one of their New World Translations
Provide supporting data, which your claim is blissfully free of.
of the Holy Bible and compare the New testament translation with other
translations such as the King James Version, the New American Standard
Version, Revised Standard Version, etc., etc.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindschanging texts, what a joke you are, shall i list again the number of documents, papyri, codex or other source material that went into producing the new world translation while you stumble to name but five for yours, give us a break, we have the ultimate translation! you can say what you like, it does not deter from this fact.
So the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been changing texts in
the scriptures for over half a century either escapes your notice or
maybe, that's okay because it agrees with the theology taught by them.
Right?
02 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsStill no evidence, what a spongle, yes lets compare it with the Kings James version of the Bible, effectively a government sanctioned Bible not to mention a translation of a translation containing over 20,000 inaccuracies and obsolete language. Move away from the pc, slap yourself on the forehead and stand in the corner wearing a large hat with the letter D emboldened upon it! You dont know anything in this regard.
If you really want the proof, just get one of their New World Translations
of the Holy Bible and compare the New testament translation with other
translations such as the King James Version, the New American Standard
Version, Revised Standard Version, etc., etc.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll the expert Greek language scholars say otherwise and agree with me,
Still no evidence, what a spongle, yes lets compare it with the Kings James version of the Bible, effectively a government sanctioned Bible not to mention a translation of a translation containing over 20,000 inaccuracies and obsolete language. Move away from the pc, slap yourself on the forehead and stand in the corner wearing a large hat with the letter D emboldened upon it! You dont know anything in this regard.
my little pip-squeak British idiot.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindswww.biblegateway.com Multi-language and versions
If you really want the proof, just get one of their New World Translations
of the Holy Bible and compare the New testament translation with other
translations such as the King James Version, the New American Standard
Version, Revised Standard Version, etc., etc.
also
You can go to http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
For the NWT
Honestly the English translations are all very close. Even the archaic KJV but RC I don't claim or care for the KJV anyway.
Manny
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what you're saying is that instead of making an assertion with supporting facts, you'd rather hurl baseless insults. That is soooo classy.
If you really want the proof, just get one of their New World Translations
of the Holy Bible and compare the New testament translation with other
translations such as the King James Version, the New American Standard
Version, Revised Standard Version, etc., etc.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by BadwaterWhat baseless insult did I hurl in the response to you? I simply informed
So what you're saying is that instead of making an assertion with supporting facts, you'd rather hurl baseless insults. That is soooo classy.
you what you need to do if you want to know the truth of the matter. What is so insulting about that?
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am the one with the ridiculous hope that you all will see the error of your ways and admit the bible was written by men and no help was ever needed by a god.
There is no fighting, only friendly arguing is going on in hopes that
rc and G75 will see the errors of their ways.
Just humans doing their creative thing, nothing above human intelligence is in the bible or any other religious document, like the Quran, the Cabala or Aztec Codex, it's all the same, just human intelligence and creativity at work.
Any you all fall for it hook line and sinker, not even using your own intelligence to see through the biggest scam of the last 2000 years. You are all blinded by your obsession with god.
Forgetting to actually live on the real planet we share in your obsession to go to a 'better' life in the non-existent afterlife or heaven or hell. Such a waste of intelligence.
02 Jul 11
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHow are we to view your statements,
All the expert Greek language scholars say otherwise and agree with me,
my little pip-squeak British idiot.
1. You are beginning to talk like an idiot now. I can't reason with an idiot,
2. It is a pity that you don't get your head out of your ASS
3. my little pip-squeak British idiot
in light of the following,
(Matthew 5:22) . . .whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of
contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You
despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Gehenna.
It seems to me that despite your pretensions, you have not the foggiest idea what
Christ taught. Indeed, how are we to view your derisive expressions in view of
Christ's words, for a Christian is one who adopts the teachings of the Christ, you
seem to be something other than that, as is evident by your contempt for others.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemost serious scholars avoid the KJV. It is useful if you use a concordance, otherwise there are superior translations: NRV, NSRV, NLT etc...
LOL, G-man, they proffer texts from the King James version, itself a translation of a translation, containing twenty thousand errors, have been made to publicly admit that neither Christ nor Paul made mention of the doctrine, then with the same breath claim that its demonstrated through inference and then have the audacity to talk about weak translat ...[text shortened]... would have believed his text if I had not read it myself, talk about being in darkness mentally?