History of the Bible

[7thMoon]

The "significant" differences are overhyped and insignificant in truth.

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/major...-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type

The long ending of Mark? The fact that there is no Alexandrian text that has a text-type, and all coincidently in Coptic alphabet.

"There are NO theological differences between the sets of manuscripts...only some are strengthened by one set over another. "

There is the passage in Jude which says Jesus led them out of Egypt. Jesus the son of Nun did lead them into the promised land, and the cursives don't have Jesus as YHWH in Jude as well.

 

[JohnDB]

The long ending of Mark? The fact that there is no Alexandrian text that has a text-type, and all coincidently in Coptic alphabet.

There is the passage in Jude which says Jesus led them out of Egypt. Jesus the son of Nun did lead them into the promised land, and the cursives don't have Jesus as YHWH in Jude as well.

So...
Did Jesus die by crucifixion and raise himself on the third day?

Is Jesus God?

Important questions here that only come from the book you are claiming is flawed....figure it out. You either believe or you don't believe. What say you?

 

[7thMoon]

So...
Did Jesus die by crucifixion and raise himself on the third day?

Yes

Is Jesus God?

Subgod since he became an angel?

Important questions here that only come from the book you are claiming is flawed....figure it out. You either believe or you don't believe. What say you?

I know what to believe; you don't.

 

[JohnDB]

Yes

Subgod since he became an angel?

I know what to believe; you don't.

According to your post then you are on the wrong site....this site is for Christians not for Mormons or JWs or some other religion.

We believe Jesus is God and God is Jesus....part of the Trinity. Not a pantheon or a council or some other form of modalism...but God himself for all eternity.

If you don't subscribe to this then you are not a Christian and need to state that clearly.

 

[7thMoon]

According to your post then you are on the wrong site....this site is for Christians not for Mormons or JWs or some other religion.

We believe Jesus is God and God is Jesus....part of the Trinity. Not a pantheon or a council or some other form of modalism...but God himself for all eternity.

If you don't subscribe to this then you are not a Christian and need to state that clearly.

Everyone here knows I am not a trinitarian.

 

[CS1]

I prefer not to seek the so-called changes due to translations from Hebrew and Greek to Latin and then to other languages.

However, focus on the Constant Chief Cornerstone, which states that all scripture must be built on that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The removal of certain books was because of the following:

1. They did not meet the standard measured up to the Foundational truth of Christ, the Eyewitnesses of the Lord, and the Prophets of old.
2. All Scripture must be built on the person of Christ. Those who were not, as the Book of Enoch and the Gnostic Gospels, were flawed and written by those who were not eyewitnesses. FYI, the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch.
3. Traditional church writings were given the same authority as the Inspired word of God from the Prophets and the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Welcome to the RCC dogma.

There was no change, only abandonment of the word of God, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The RCC is doing it again. The sad thing is many of the reformed churches have also. Left Jesus for a doctrinal position and made it elite. The Person of Christ is being attacked as never before. YET HIS word has stood the test of time and always will. Those who Build on Christ shall not be moved.

 

[Rainrider]

Old copies and manuscript fragments have been dated to 100BC and do not have any significant differences between the Bible we have today versus then.

True the dead sea scrolls are the oldest available text, and though there are some small changes, (if one wishes to call them that). However, as you made clear they are small, and don't change the teachings that are found in the Word. However the most significant changes came not from the Hebrew writings, rather from the translation. As we know, even in them the teachings are not changed much. Although they do show the intent of the one commissioning the translation.
If we look at only this however, we miss a lot of the changes that were made to the teachings. Or should I say, the way it is interpreted. Those changes have corrupted the teachings, and until Yeshua returners, there are some that will never look, much less except the truth.
People have became lazy, and will just excet what ever the leaders of their church say as fact. Even though as can be seen in every thread I have ever started, they use one passage to discredit, dismiss, or other wise remove the foundation the Word is built on.
Much like the RCC has tried to remove some of the Laws, and muddy the water where the others are concerned. Most churches cling to parts of the RCC, yet wish to say how the RCC is for what ever. Even to the point of teaching that the RCC is the beast of Rev. 13. However that rabbit trail goes way off in left field where this topic is concerned.

 

[JohnDB]

True the dead sea scrolls are the oldest available text, and though there are some small changes, (if one wishes to call them that). However, as you made clear they are small, and don't change the teachings that are found in the Word. However the most significant changes came not from the Hebrew writings, rather from the translation. As we know, even in them the teachings are not changed much. Although they do show the intent of the one commissioning the translation.
If we look at only this however, we miss a lot of the changes that were made to the teachings. Or should I say, the way it is interpreted. Those changes have corrupted the teachings, and until Yeshua returners, there are some that will never look, much less except the truth.
People have became lazy, and will just excet what ever the leaders of their church say as fact. Even though as can be seen in every thread I have ever started, they use one passage to discredit, dismiss, or other wise remove the foundation the Word is built on.
Much like the RCC has tried to remove some of the Laws, and muddy the water where the others are concerned. Most churches cling to parts of the RCC, yet wish to say how the RCC is for what ever. Even to the point of teaching that the RCC is the beast of Rev. 13. However that rabbit trail goes way off in left field where this topic is concerned.

The largest set of "differences" is in the manuscripts of the New Testament....definite sermon notes inserted and paraphrasing of the original.

By the second Century the Church leadership had noted that there sadly were differences between the various manuscripts in various places....

However....today with a LOT of study and manuscript sharing we have the most accurate Bible to date. Between contextual clues and writing styles and etc....we know where in Mark John 8 actually goes...

What happened is that no one understood how important their hand copied Bible really was. They discounted themselves and their efforts. (Little wonder considering how the Church treated scribes which was little better than Rome's persecution) it's amazing to me that we have what we have...and how exactingly accurate it is. Even Paul's "lost letters" to various churches we have to this day....preserved carefully.

 

[maxwel]

Everyone here knows I am not a trinitarian.

Your divergence from the historic Christian faith seems to go far beyond merely being "not a trinitarian."


By any traditional or orthodox interpretation of scripture, to disavow the deity of Christ is to be squarely outside the faith.

.

 

[7thMoon]

Your divergence from the historic Christian faith seems to go far beyond merely being "not a trinitarian."


By any traditional or orthodox interpretation of scripture, to disavow the deity of Christ is to be squarely outside the faith.

.

Anything else?

 

[Rainrider]

I see that a topic came up, even though one person was band from the sight for what ever reason. In the short time it was being debated, it went as many topics do on here, becoming more about church tradition, and less about Biblical teachings. When one teaches on tradition, the truth of the Word becomes clouded. As you may remember I made a statement on this once already.
In the Word it is made clear that Yeshua and HaShem are one. Please see John chapter one. Not many understand that the trinity comes from the RCC, and has as it's foundation the teachings from Nimrods mom.
Now before you go off trying to say I don't understand Yeshua, and what He has done for us, you would be wrong. I know, and walk in the faith of His sacrifice washing away my sin. This trusting faithfulness, and the Word is all we have. So when you see a person that doesn't follow the idea of 3 gods, don't just lump them in a class with unbelievers, rather engage them in a loving way. See what you may learn from them, and test their ideas to find the truth.
Don't get me wrong, there comes a time when turning away becomes the only way to move forward with a topic. As some people simply want nothing more than to disagree with you, and try to force you into their way of seeing things. Even if means the same old topic being posted even if has nothing to with the topic.
Next time if there is no reply to this post, I will open the door to Nimrod, and try to show what I am talking of here.

 

[Cameron143]

I see that a topic came up, even though one person was band from the sight for what ever reason. In the short time it was being debated, it went as many topics do on here, becoming more about church tradition, and less about Biblical teachings. When one teaches on tradition, the truth of the Word becomes clouded. As you may remember I made a statement on this once already.
In the Word it is made clear that Yeshua and HaShem are one. Please see John chapter one. Not many understand that the trinity comes from the RCC, and has as it's foundation the teachings from Nimrods mom.
Now before you go off trying to say I don't understand Yeshua, and what He has done for us, you would be wrong. I know, and walk in the faith of His sacrifice washing away my sin. This trusting faithfulness, and the Word is all we have. So when you see a person that doesn't follow the idea of 3 gods, don't just lump them in a class with unbelievers, rather engage them in a loving way. See what you may learn from them, and test their ideas to find the truth.
Don't get me wrong, there comes a time when turning away becomes the only way to move forward with a topic. As some people simply want nothing more than to disagree with you, and try to force you into their way of seeing things. Even if means the same old topic being posted even if has nothing to with the topic.
Next time if there is no reply to this post, I will open the door to Nimrod, and try to show what I am talking of here.

I think you can get alot of nimrods to reply.

 

[Cameron143]

I love you guys whose ties are too tight. Come up out of the basement, go outside, and get some fresh air.

 

[Rainrider]

As I said we are going to talk about Nimrod for a bit. A lot of what you will find here isn't in the Bible, rather in other books about the man.
Semiramis, Nimrods mom was also his wife. They had a kid together, and that kid was said to the reincarnation of Nimrod, and she became the mother of god. Nimrod was dead at this point, and she was looking for a way to hold on to power. You see a woman would never have been allowed to rule any kingdom then. So by elevating her self to a goddess, no one would stand in her way. Sadly this was also one of the goddess of Roman. So when christianity became the state religion of Roman, the pagan priest that were now in charge of teaching what they seen as truth, incorporated this with other teachings into the church. Not once in the Word do we read of a queen of heaven. Hold on now, it is in the Word. Oddly however it is stated as a pagan practice. You can find this in the book of Jer. Chapters 7, and 44.
As I said we are not here to speak to church doctrine, rather to seek the ways the Word has been change over time, that often means looking at what has became a big part of some church's, and their teachings. As I am sure that many of you have heard for this teaching, and some even follow it blindly. With no understanding of where it came from, or what the Word tells us about it.
So when we look at anything man teaches us, we must look at the Word, and what it teaches us. However in the case of looking at Biblical History, we must look into the root of the teachings, where they came from and how they found their way into the church. Sadly most are not doing this, as is clear by the way they speak, act, and back pagan teachings.
Never forget that the greatest deception by Satan is to make you think he isn't doing anything. He does this by going slow, and building on the lies that are already out there. In this case he had the help of those that were already following him.
Think of this way, some will see this and understand, others will try to make a big thing out of how wrong it is, still it must be said.
For any that have been in the same church for years, and follow the teachings of said church, anything that comes along that isn't in line with that church is wrong, and they will fight to the bitter end to show how right it is. Even to the point of using one passage to negate another. A common theme that has followed every thread I have eve started. Never mind that the ones doing this have no answer when asked a direct question that shows the wrong in their understanding.
To day the RCC in many cases hold that Mary is the queen of heaven. It is also found in other church's, and has a strong hold on them that follow this.
Still to come, in what ways has the church held on to pagan teaches, and are willing to fight to show they are right? Keep in mind, they will say they are right, then try to show how HaShem, Yeshua, and the prophets are wrong. Stay tune it may become comical soon.

 

[Rainrider]

As is understood by any that have spent time in looking at translations, anytime a work is translated something is lost. At times something may be added as well. I am sure we all know this, so lets move on.
How many times have any of you been asked, "What is the best translation of the Bible?" I am sure many of you have given the answer, "The KING JAMES" Yet is that the best answer you have? We always answer this question with the following. "The best one is the one that speaks to you." In other words, if you can pick it up and do the following, read it, understand it, and not become confused by it, then you have the right for you. However, we must also think about the meathead used to translate it. As well the number of people that worked on said translation. Now I know not many look at this when thinking of a translation they may like. So here is why it is important.
First let's look at the meathead. In some cases it word for word. This is good, however in some cases the Hebrew word may not have an English equivalent. In this case the word that comes closest is put in it's place. Take the Word Yeshua. The best translation into English is, God is salvation. The name Jesus on the other hand, is highly debated. Some will say is was derived from Zeus. Though that can't be shown, it has gained traction over time.
One thing we can say and be 100% sure of is that HaShem has never let any one remove His teachings from any translation. Oh the wording may be a bit different, however the teaching remains. Even when a translation is the work of only one person. As is the case with at lest one translation I use. (Sorry won't give the name, you see I will not give ammo, or weapons to anyone that may use it to try and diminish the work of another. )
This will be the post on this thread, as it seems no one is interested in this topic. Sad really, as it does shine a light on many things. From how the church became what it is, to why some many people only think they know Yeshua.

 

[Rainrider]

Well it seems that wasn't the last post. Something was placed on my heart, and we do agree it has to come to light. One of the biggest things that has effect how one see's the Word was the addition of what is called the New Testament. For some reason, it has became the point at which most wish to divide the Word. They will try to use Paul to make the point that this is right.

2Ti 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

For some reason they forget Paul also said,

2Ti 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

As we should know, what is called the Old testament is scripture, even if we don't like the idea. In fact as we have said many times, Paul only had one set of scripture, that being the Tanakh. Yet over time, and thanks to teachings many will say they would never follow, that changed. Why?
I am sure every one has heard that old saying, "If you tell lie long enough, and loud enough, it becomes truth in the minds of them here it. I am sure that some of you, if you are following this thread, may recall that I said some parts of the RCC can found in almost every church out there. Well this one of those aspects. Along with the idea that the Jews are evil, and they have lost their place as HaShem's chosen people. Yet the word is clear that this isn't true.
In fact if we were to open a thread on this topic, I would be sure to see the same people doing the same thing. Trying to make it about how wrong the law is, and how trying to live ones life in the manner shown in the life, teachings, and faith that Yeshua walked is a sin. Why?
Remember what we said about Rome, and it's new religion? How they filled the role of priest with same leaders from their pagan teachings? Well they had a need to remove anything that came from the Tanakh. In other words, if it was seen as Jewish, it had to go.
Yet in truth, the "N.T." is nothing more than a follow through of the same teachings found there.

 

[JohnDB]

Well it seems that wasn't the last post. Something was placed on my heart, and we do agree it has to come to light. One of the biggest things that has effect how one see's the Word was the addition of what is called the New Testament. For some reason, it has became the point at which most wish to divide the Word. They will try to use Paul to make the point that this is right.

2Ti 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

For some reason they forget Paul also said,

2Ti 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

As we should know, what is called the Old testament is scripture, even if we don't like the idea. In fact as we have said many times, Paul only had one set of scripture, that being the Tanakh. Yet over time, and thanks to teachings many will say they would never follow, that changed. Why?
I am sure every one has heard that old saying, "If you tell lie long enough, and loud enough, it becomes truth in the minds of them here it. I am sure that some of you, if you are following this thread, may recall that I said some parts of the RCC can found in almost every church out there. Well this one of those aspects. Along with the idea that the Jews are evil, and they have lost their place as HaShem's chosen people. Yet the word is clear that this isn't true.
In fact if we were to open a thread on this topic, I would be sure to see the same people doing the same thing. Trying to make it about how wrong the law is, and how trying to live ones life in the manner shown in the life, teachings, and faith that Yeshua walked is a sin. Why?
Remember what we said about Rome, and it's new religion? How they filled the role of priest with same leaders from their pagan teachings? Well they had a need to remove anything that came from the Tanakh. In other words, if it was seen as Jewish, it had to go.
Yet in truth, the "N.T." is nothing more than a follow through of the same teachings found there.

The New Testament is the Old Testament REVEALED and the Old Testament is the New Testament EXPLAINED.

You can't have one without the other. They go together. And the people who live by them both those who lived solely by the Old Testament and those who have the New Testament TOGETHER are the righteousness of God.

 

[Rainrider]

The New Testament is the Old Testament REVEALED and the Old Testament is the New Testament EXPLAINED.

You can't have one without the other. They go together. And the people who live by them both those who lived solely by the Old Testament and those who have the New Testament TOGETHER are the righteousness of God.

Amen. Now I do ask that you please corret me if I wrong in this part. Are you saying that if one keeps only the O.T. they are lost, and the same for one that keeps only the N.T.?

 

[gb9]

Amen. Now I do ask that you please corret me if I wrong in this part. Are you saying that if one keeps only the O.T. they are lost, and the same for one that keeps only the N.T.?

i am not answering for john, but the only thing that makes one lost is unbelief in Christ.

believe=saved.

do not believe= lost/condemned.

 

[JohnDB]

Amen. Now I do ask that you please corret me if I wrong in this part. Are you saying that if one keeps only the O.T. they are lost, and the same for one that keeps only the N.T.?

Well, without the explanation of what the New Testament means and why things happened the way they did....it doesn't have a lot of importance. Like how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, became our atoning sacrifice, and was God.