The Bible....
I was referring to Mark as curly but good morning to you too Ron.
The wikipedia for the Geneva Bible says it preceded the King James translation by 51 years, so 1560. The Douay-Rheims New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582. The Douay-Rheims Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609. I just read this morning that English exiles in France did the DR translations.
I think the English Kings and Queens back then thought themselves as being divine. They still might.
And Mark we all know that the Pope is God's representative here on earth.
The wikipedia for the Geneva Bible says this, "The annotations which are an important part of the Geneva Bible were Calvinist and Puritan in character, and as such they were disliked by the ruling pro – government Protestants of the Church of England, as well as King James I, who commissioned the "Authorized Version," or King James Bible, in order to replace it."
It probably had more to do with the Calvinist and Puritan interpretation of the Bible that were in the annotations of the Geneva Bible.Yes, but they are not the instructions he gave.
No need to apologize. I am unable to find them either. But those instructions are as close to the real ones as the bible is to being the word of a god.
Hey that's a deal.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, written by His followers, men, with the guidance of His Holy Spirit. I as a man have to confess that I have lied before.Ah, so it is not longer the word of god. It is written by liars.
At least we are getting somewhere now. Odd you did not have a link for King James' instructions. You seem to have everything else.Is this what you are talking about when you refer to the King James' instructions? You are the Englishman, I'm not.
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/kj_instructs.htm
I didn't say the Bible was written by liars. I said His followers wrote it guided by His Holy Spirit so it's the inspired Word of God.
Ra... um AmenLOL
Sure. But he does not exist. And men are liars.
We are definitely getting somewhere now.
And no - that is the sanitized version. I will seek out an online copy of the real instructions. If not, I will have to type the damn thing out. At the weekend when I have time. Odd - your bible does not have the instructions in the front?
Mine does.We could possibly agree that you and I are liars on occasion. You more than me I think.
But not those that wrote the Bible.
I mostly read the online versions of the Douay-Rheims and King James Bibles but I also have a hard copy of them both. My King James Bible is a Revised Standard version with just a Preface in the front, no King James' instructions.
I will be looking forward to you typing "the damn thing out". I mean I can hardly wait.Well, speaking for a non-existemt god counts as lying in my book.
Which means you out rank me by quite some margin.
What about the translators notes? Is that in those?Nope just a 5 page Preface. It starts out like this.
"The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611."
Like most revisions this one was done because many forms of expression have become archaic. Personally I think this should be the only reason to revise a Bible, although some different newer versions are revised for other reasons.
I appreciate this conversation Mark. I believe you are bringing some to the Word of God. Keep up the good work and there may be a reward in heaven for you.LOL
Dear oh lordy dee,
You mean you are working from some 1900 version which does not include any of this.
LOL
You mean you are taking the KJ version as the "inspired word of god," and you have not read the instructions from KJ, nor have you read the translators notes; nor have you read the genealogies or the explanation of the calendar or seen the map?
Yup - a 5LOL moment.
I take it that you have not studied medieval English either?
And you made a decision?.......
You are very welcome annvans.
See Mark.
Nope, nope, nope, and nope Mark. I barely recognize the current queeny.
My main Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible. Like I said, before I post in here from the Douay-Rheims Bible I often check the King James Bible so I don't cause confusion seeing most Christians that come here are from a Protestant denomination.
My understanding of medieval England or English comes from a Highland Scot perspective. Well that and what we were forced to learn about English history in school, Canada being a "colony" and all.
I have a fairly good understanding of the Reformation though, which brought about both the King James and Douay-Rheims Bibles, the later published in France by English exiles because Catholicism was outlawed in England at the time and until about 1800. Do I really have to know King James instructions to the translators to recognize the Bible as the inspired Word of God?
No my hard copy of the King James Bible is a 1971 publication revised from the 1901 American Standard Version. Like I said, I will be looking forward to you typing "the damn thing out", King James' instructions to the translators, that is. I'll hold you to your promise.LOL
Well, the interesting thing is that you have never read the book you are always quoting from.
Rather sums the whole thing up really.
And yes - you need to have actually read it before you can quote from it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sorry.
I assume you have a 1986 version of the catholic child abuser's manual also.
Or do you use the online version?Dude - you made me drag the old thing out, and I am laughing so hard. lolol
They thought (oh, I am sorry - were inspired by god - to write that there were 2 lights lolol - One greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. lolol)
God forgot to tell them about the moon not having it's own light. Lololol
Seriously - I needed a laugh. The word of god as told before any one knew anything.
Thanks Mike. I had nearly forgotten.
You have actually read this - right?................
Oh oh Mark. You have a decenter in the ranks of the FSM.
I just said that I didn't read King James instructions to the translators, that's all Mr. McNasty. Seeing I don't recognize the queeny much and my ancestor's didn't recognize King James as their sovereign I don't see how I need to read King James instructions to the translators to recognize that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. By the way my ancestor's sovereign at the time was the Lord of the Isles, and no not chucky.
I'll still read it though if you type "the damn thing out".
It's nice to see that you dusted off your Bible. Keep reading.
This has been a fun conversation with you today Mark but I'm going to have to take off now. See you.That is because you have not read it.
Because it MUST be the inspired word of god, otherwise everything is dismal. Even though you have not read it - papist.
- I haven't been called a papist in a while.
Please translate the verse in question for this poor papist Mark.
I'll check it when I come back. See you.LOL
The translator's introduction is littered with the word "papist."
As you would know - if you had read it.
It is, after all, the "inspired word of god." Mark the King James' instructions to the translators in the front of your older King James Bible and the Preface in the front of my 1971 copy of the King James Bible are not the inspired Word of God. Just the words from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation are the inspired Word of God.
The fact that the King James' instructions to the translators in the front of your older King James Bible is littered with the word "papist" does not bother me. It just shows the signs of those times. In fact I don't even mind being called a "papist". The Preface in the front of my 1971 copy of the King James Bible does not mention the word "papist".
It says this in the Preface of my 1971 copy of the King James Bible.
I like the fact that it is written in my 1971 copy that the translators of the King James Bible also took into account the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. I think this hints of Christian unity. Let's face it the Bible, no matter which one we read does say that we are to be "one body in Christ" many times.
Thanks for directing me to this Mark.My pleasure Make Money. It is gratifying to know that you had never read the original. And still have not done so apparently. Nor have you read the instructions which are rather explicit as to what the word of god should say. Just a sign of the times I guess. I do see a lot of references to "papists" and mention of another version that was wrong. Is that the one you speak of? The bishop's bible? Doesn't sound like unity to me. Nor would it to you if you had ever read any history books.
I like that you latched on to the sanitized 1971 version though.
Nice to know that even you agree the word of god changes to suit the political climate. I do like the 1998 version of the instructions that you have found (which bear no relation to the actual instructions) which rather shows how desperate you are getting.
Which pretty much makes it the word of man. Too bad......
Please let me know when you have read the actual instructions rather than the politically correct, sanitized version according to a religionist who was horrified at the real ones.
Looking forward to it - otherwise I would have to waste my time typing out the real ones only to have you tell me they were written by communists...........But in reality it translates to "no body in Christ."
- annvansposted 15 years ago
0 And when, exactly, did we get to the moon? Quite a leap...
- it's your misconception. The origional INJEEL is not here
Well, not much better, but this from the quoran might help throw some light on the subject.Murder seems to be ok in the Quoran. I remember some from the bible too and will post if provoked
Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said (lied), ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.You are mentioning Tabari not Qur'an
OH snap, I got the 666 post.
Me too, look, only four more post away from 666 at the top, spooky!
Or maybe yours belong to someone else
Absolutely.
Whatever makes us happy is right for us - Like I have previously mentioned, English versions change because many forms of expression in the English language have become archaic. The English language is one of the youngest languages on the planet, if not the youngest so it is constantly changing, even from decade to decade. The English language of today is not the same English language of 1610 or even of 1910.
Well Mark if you want to post King James' instructions to the translators I will read it. But his words still will not be the inspired Word of God. Like I said just the words from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation are the inspired Word of God.
Are you trying to tell me that I have a 1998 version instead of a 1971 version, even though it says 1971 in the front of my copy.
I'll check back to see if you have posted King James' instructions. See you.Not a chance dude. If you cannot be bothered to read the original, or the translators notes, I am not sure why I should bother. And if you think the threats in his instructions encouraged them to be inspired by god...
Do you actually own a bible?
Curly I can't read it if I don't have an old copy of the King James Bible like yours. What you are talking about, King James' instructions to the translators, is not in my version. How do I get that through your thick skull? If you are not willing to post it then why are you going on about it. And if you are not willing to post it then you are wasting my time. See you.
Sorry. You have made it clear that you do not have access to an original English bible. Nor can you be bothered to do so. You have also made it clear that you have not read either the instructions, nor the translators notes.
Yet you are convinced that this is the inspired word of god and prefer to ignore the obvious differences between the two cults that has resulted in years of warfare.
Odd that.
Irrational even.
Still. Let me know when you have an original version and I may consider spending the hours it would take to type the instructions out.
Odd also how you are such an expert on what the bible says, but have not read an old one. Very odd. Wonder why that is.
If it is any consolation, I was given mine as I was sent off to church boarding school by my grand dad who was able to obtain an original with notes. Not easy to convert all those FF's into SSs and still maintain the flow.With all thou's flapping you wouldst haveth posted tis numerous times by now. If thee self had tis original version then thou would not have to post tis. Donst hold thou breath.
Sorry Make Money -
I cannot cut and paste it. Unlike your knowledge of the online bible. It needs typing out.
You mean a religious webmaster lied to me? That bastard!
Sorry to have burst your bubble.
I see that. It'll be banned.
Dude - if you want titties, there are better places to go.......
PM me.
How can you have an odd number?
Actually, no - I don't want to know.
It was just a supposition to teach you about context.
The Bible itself. What proof do you have that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit? Christians know this so you bare the burden to prove it wrong. Don't think I am trying to convert you, you are coming to the Religion forum and to this thread on your own accord. If you don't like what is being written, then too bad. That's your problem.
-
Yet another 4LOL statement from Make Money.
Dude - the burden of proof is on you, and despite numerous proofs that the bible is not what you claim it to be, still you try and deny those proofs. Most entertaining really. Once again I thank you for showing me the value of your book. The truth is you have never even read a close-to-original version.
If it wasn't for cut and paste, I doubt we would have even seen a bible reference from you.
The truth has to be told. Sometimes it hurts, and other times it stings like in your case. Like I say, you are the one choosing to come here. Maybe you should complete the Holy Bible.
The "truth" from a christian hurts because you can be so mean, uncaring, selfish, ignorant, and most unloving. Then there is the physical hurt, killing in the name, making threats, posting lies about other peoples beliefs so that other ignorant christains get a false sense (like everything else) for what is real and what is not real.
...moving on to witch burning, burning evidence, making up more lies to cover up for the other lies. Ripping off stories from people who came before christ and saying that he is the only one.
Why don't you go find a Christians only forum to preach to, then you will get all the praise you need to help you feel accomplished in doing jesus' work. But I am sure you would bump heads there as well because all of you always seem to be right and everyone else is wrong.
Please feel free to share the picture with all the Muslims you hate too, I am sure you would get off to a great start in your way to the truth and god.
Your god or gods make killers and liars out of people.
All good biblical values.
That's the same old zeitgeist video fairy tale that has been debunked long ago. It is so old and warn out it's not even zeitgeist (spirit of the time) any more.
What I find hilarious is that the zeitgeist fairy tale authors use over 200 sources in their transcript yet many of the sources are used over and over again, some 20 to 30 times. In reality there are not many sources, mostly has beens.
It mentions this right on part 1 of this video series.
"circular" for sure, you guys are getting stale.
Nor am I. Mike your assumptions are predictable but not necessarily correct.
I'm not an advocate of Blavadsky's work. There is allot she wrote which was taken from eastern philosophies, some of which has been misinterpreted along with many westerners who took eastern doctrines and adapted it for the western mind.
The Luciferic infestation is not the creative mind of Blavadsky. Regardless of this, it is a good idea to understand the workings of the Arhimanic agenda. It is quite obvious to the observer that the Christian church could in fact be the luciferic influence of the modern world. Particularly as EC's look forever outward to be saved when they need to go in the opposite direction - inward. So I'd be very careful about throwing stones in a glass house.
Scholars have refuted many of Blavadsky's works, non christians included. But with many great minds, she did some great work and this also has been acknowledged - obviously not by the christian fold.
It very much appears that these 10 debunking videos are as dramatic and passionately influential as they were intended to lure the wavering followers back to the fold! But it didn't influence me at all to dispute zeitgeist. In fact it just reinforced the ignorance of understanding within the christian faith of esoteric knowledge.Mike, you are always wanting to categorize me, why is that? I like to read what other people have done and draw my own conclusions based on experience. I'm lucky and grateful to have the means by which to have those experiences for myself and not to rely on other people's beliefs.
I'm not waiting for an anti-christ, though I do see that if christians have brought into the luciferic infestation, you need it more than anyone. Let he who denieth that Mike is lucifer in christian clothing, text the administration of christ and send forth their repellent immediately.@Make Money Why do you wanna pigeonhole folks?........ It ain't cool making such assumptions.... I dunno folks like you and Usmanali who believe in conspiracies.... do ya really believe it in your heart.. or just say it... ad hominem.. to weaken the credibility of other participants..... to win your arguments.
Mike does it all the time. And don't talk of Lillith, it scares him. I think it may ruffle his sexual desires a tad! Temptation I think.
Secretly I think he loves it
Actually Jewels I didn't understand your meaning of the Arhimanic agenda so I did a Google search to try to figure out what you were talking about.
What I found on the first page of the search was a link to an older HubPages forum thread with this post by Mark Knowles with a link to Uncle Taz's web site. Mark was replying to someone that was asking what Arhimanic is.
It was sandra rinck that had started the thread that Mark posted the above to. And it was you Jewels that first mentioned Arhimanic in that thread. The above post by Mark was made 11 months ago.
Mark I thought you said "Well, I have never even heard of uncle taz and don't recall posting a page about it." So it seems you are familiar with both uncle taz and the Arhimanic agenda Mark.
Also Jewels I have noticed that you have posted a few times that you like and follow the teachings of Rudolf Steiner about anthroposophy. So I did a bit of research and found Rudolf Steiner's teachings about anthroposophy refer to the christ inside of you putting a balance between the good of lucifer that's in you and the bad of ahriman that's also in you. Or is it that the christ inside of you is putting a balance between the bad of both lucifer and ahriman that's in you. I don't know, I know more than I want to know about it already.
It seems Rudolf Steiner's teachings make a mockery of Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and possibly Islam, Judaism and some other religions.
Anyway I can see why Tarjei Straume aka Uncle Taz is quoted as saying "Why 'Philosophy of Freedom' by Rudolf Steiner is the Anarchist Bible"
But this thread titled 'The Bible' is referring to God's Holy Bible.
Not the Anarchist Bible.
Here's the thread for you New Agers.Yup - that is the link I found when I googled it.
I have no recollection of uncle taz though. Far as I recall, I googled it and that is what I found. I do believe that is what I said at the time. Thank you once again Make Money. I love it when you behave in this way. It reminds me why I despise your religion and why I would never consider joining you in what you believe.
Seriously - any god you worship that encourages this sort of behavior? No thanks.
I love it when you show exactly the amount of hate and disgust you have for everyone. Like a good christian should. Awesome.
Yet another 4LOL moment from Make Money. Nope just luciferians Uncle Taz.
Hey Mike, it had taken you such a long time to respond I'd forgotten about you. You are such an entertaining fellow. Glad you are getting into some alternate reading other than your biblical texts - so limiting to the mind unless you spread yourself a bit.
Speaking of the mind - also pleased you're learning a bit more about Lucifer and Ahriman. Here's some more references for you in case you'd got lost in Google World.
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Sm … s/i32.html
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ChrLuc_index.html
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RWn … mp;f=false
And why don't you buy the book? Start to learn about memes and know what cult you are embroiled in. I think you owe it to yourself that way you can start to save yourself instead of having some poor dead guy do it for you
The term Ahriman comes from the Zoroastrian religion, where Ahura Mazda, principle of light, and Ahriman, principle of darkness, fight each other on the stage of the world. Please note the work PRINCIPLE in case you're looking for arms and legs again
This dualistic vision is said to have been a seminal influence on the Book of Revelation and on Apocalyptic literature in general, with scholars pointing to the Babylonian captivity (Jewish people taken in exile to Babylon, 586-538 BC), as a period of contact with Zoroastrian influence.
References to Ahriman are also found in Neoplatonism as well as Steiner's material.
Mark you assume allot and like to spew venom - go ahead - I find you amusing because of your ignorance mainly. No worries mate But unlike you, I read more than one book. I don't necessarily align with all I read and I'll say it again in case you have a bit of the old age syndrome happening - I take what works for me and leave the rest.
Remember the Solar Logos = Christ. No arms and legs there. The Eye of Horus = the only gate to heaven. Get your spiritual practices happening, get your arse on the floor and start meditating or you'll miss the big boat. Don't wait for that button to get you all raised up - geez!
Who is this uncle Taz? I've never heard of it.
Related Discussions
- 21
What translation do you use when you study the Bible? and Why?
What translation do you use when you study the Bible? and Why?I often wonder which bible people use when they study scripture. I have used several in my time as a minister and while I was studying to be a minister. But what do you use when you study scripture and why do you use that particular...
- 25
Why do Christians fall down in prayer?
Why do Christians fall down in prayer?I can't find in the bible where Jesus or the disciples made the people to fall under the anointing. The thing is, a non believer said such things are fake and there is no mention of this phenomena written in the New Testament...what should I answer...
- 7
Hebrews never had a j in their alphabet until the 17th century where does the na
Hebrews never had a j in their alphabet until the 17th century where does the name Jesus come from?Thus includes the term Jew also.
- 83
Does the Bible condone slavery?
Here are three examples. Are there more?(Bold emphasis mine.)"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them...
- 39
Can an atheist and a Christian coexist peacefully and become friends?
Can an atheist and a Christian coexist peacefully and become friends?
- 45
What are the different names of God and what do they mean in the Bible?
What are the different names of God and what do they mean in the Bible?Each of the many names of God describes a different aspect of His many-faceted character. What are some of the many names of God in the Bible? I will start: El Shaddai " God Almighty" Jehovah Jireh...