Best English Language Bible?

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
I'll write up the Marian stuff when I have more time,.

Tex Cruise said:
I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and take on Ye olde Englishe until the QCT comes out.

It could be worse, TC. I'm going back even further.

I'm currently reading The Prymer, which is a Prayer for Lay Persons in the Middle Ages dating from about 1400. It's Middle English, not the Early Modern English of the Douay-Rheims. It's interesting to see how the language developed.

Very few copies survived the Reformation. There's thought to be less than 250 copies remaining in existence. Once again, you were put to death if it was found in your possession.

This is a modern-ish retyping (late 1800's) rather than the ornate calligraphy of the original. Note the difference:



I've discovered I'm very, very fascinated with this earlier form of language. Probably my only real encounter with it would be Chaucer in University, but now I'm at an age to be inspired by it. I'm teaching myself to read and speak it. Perhaps it will be a good lead up to tackling Latin.

This is a fairly-simple page. By my beginning understand, this reads as:

THE NIGHTTIME LITURGY

Lord, thou shalt open my lips
And my mouth shall show thy praising

God take heed in to mine help
Lord, haste thee to help me

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning and ever and into worlds of worlds. So be it.

Allelujah: God make me safe.

All [?] praise ye the Lord.

The sung invitation to prayer: Praising to the Lord, King of Everlasting Joy.

Invitator: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

I think I've found a new hobby. There's a much richer sense of being part of a historical tradition in a work like this.

If you're interested in researching belief, there's a wealth of older scanned online sources out there to dig into.
 

Mage

 
scorpion said:
AnonymousBosch said:
This is a great example.

In Catholic Tradition, Mary wasn't subject to the law of purification, since she was born free of original sin and remained a Virgin after miraculously-birthing Jesus without pain as 'light passes through glass', but submitted to it regardless to teach humility.

Not sure if you're endorsing this view or not, but it's very clearly a heretical, anti-biblical teaching. The de facto deification of Mary in the Catholic tradition is entirely the teaching of men, not of God and the Bible. Scripture is very clear that all men (and women) inherited a sin nature from Adam - including Mary. Christ himself was the only sinless human. Mary was a normal woman, just like the Apostles were normal men. Both Mary and the Apostles were favored by God and chosen for important tasks, but they were not without sin.

A quick summary of the Mary heresy: https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130227/exposing-the-heresies-of-the-catholic-church-mary-worship

A quick exposition of the Catholic position: https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

If you read both you find that the Catholic position is clearly contra-biblical, and largely relies on the description of Mary being "full of grace" as somehow indicating a sinless physical state from birth (rather than of simply being the obvious description of a woman who was favored by God to bear the Savior of mankind). There is no biblical evidence for Mary being without sin. It's just something they made up and which became tradition.

My intent is not to bash Catholicism, though. There is just as much (if not more) heresy among modern Protestants, most denominations of which are extremely pozzed. We desperately need another Reformation and a return to a focus on the actual teachings of Scripture, which alone are God-breathed and the source of divine revelation. Following the teachings and traditions of men instead of God corrupted the Jews, it corrupted the Catholic Church and it has now corrupted most Protestant denominations as well. We must return to a true understanding of the faith as taught in scripture.

sola scriptura
sola fide
sola gratia
solus Christus
soli deo gloria

If sola scriptura is the right approach then there should be a place in the scripture saying exactly that - saying that this scripture itself is the ONLY source of knowledge about God. Otherwise you take the idea of sola scriptura outside of scriptura which is self-contradictory. Apparently there is no such place in scripture.

I heard this argument from this guy who goes into good analysis about Catholicism vs Protestantism and the whole sola scriptura/fide thing:

Not that I agree with Mary being born sinless - I also think it is invented to justify some dogma. But the sola scriptura and sola fide is something I disagree too. I am not a Catholic, but I am not a Protestant even more - mainly because of the sola scriptrura fallacy. Should sola scriptura work then Protestantism would be united with a single understanding about truth - but in reality it is super divided. Apparently tradition and empiric evidence and theology based on philosophical arguments have much more powerful unifying force.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
I've heard all the arguments re: Mary, I've done readings and research. I've staked my claim where I have. People have been arguing about this for hundreds of years, and there's no way I can settle the Protestant / Catholic divide, and have little interest in doing so.

But I'd notice interesting little points: such as the eight points of narrative reflection in Luke that mirror the Old Testament Story of the Ark of the Covenant that suggest Mary is being framed, in a literary sense as the New Ark. I've noticed how often the bible works in reflection to itself, and what themes repeat, sometimes referring to both an event and a future event, to not see, well, Grand Design in Luke's early focus on Mary to illuminate Jesus.

I suppose this also comes down to if you believe the line of succession within the Church is still infused with the Holy Spirit's divine knowledge delivered to the Apostles at Pentecost to accurately-dictate dogma on such matters, or if it is extinguished with the deaths of the original twelve and everything else is just made up by men, in which case, why does the opinion of any Reformists have any greater-validity that any Catholic whatsoever?

All I know is what increases detectable, inexplicable grace is based upon regular use of the Rosary as a Prayer Tool, and with that, comes the understanding that I like the increased-responsibilities and rewards that come with being Catholic.

I'm also intrigued by Pope John Paul II - whom I consider Satanic - adding five more mysteries to the Rosary Tradition in 2002. Note the above post on the repeating pattern of sevens. The Rosary works in 5's: 5 decades, 15 mysteries, 15 minutes. We were guided to pray a third of the mysteries by Our Lady. If you follow John Paul's guidance, 20 / 3 = 6.66. They only ever subvert truth.

One other interesting consideration for me: I'm noticing the withholding of the intense grace and guidance recently: ever since I came back to the Forum to talk. I'm utterly-convinced wordly-distractions cut off the flow. I remember mentioning my sense of this to Forney last year.
 

fiasco360

Kingfisher
If interested I can ask one of the priests or bishops of my church to see if we have a direct translation of the Peshitta (and other derivatives) from Assyrian/Syriac/Aramaic into English.
 

Geomann180

Ostrich
Gold Member
fiasco360 said:
If interested I can ask one of the priests or bishops of my church to see if we have a direct translation of the Peshitta (and other derivatives) from Assyrian/Syriac/Aramaic into English.

Yes. Go with God.

G
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
The current gold standard evangelical translation is the ESV (English Standard Version.) I'm surprised it's been hardly mentioned here. This is the go-to translation for most conservative scholars and theologians these days, and is especially popular in Reformed circles (I don't consider myself Reformed, but I'd feel much more at home somewhere like Matt Chandler's church than your average megachurch.) This would be the first translation I'd suggest for serious study. It's not as casual a read as some others as it often preserves sentence structures that are a bit of a mouthful in English - I wouldn't use it for memorizing scripture.

For a more casual/readable Bible, the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) is quite good. The NET Bible is another fine translation in line with the ESV, and the whole thing (with copious volumes of contextual and translation notes) is online for free.
 
scorpion said:
My intent is not to bash Catholicism, though. There is just as much (if not more) heresy among modern Protestants, most denominations of which are extremely pozzed. We desperately need another Reformation and a return to a focus on the actual teachings of Scripture, which alone are God-breathed and the source of divine revelation. Following the teachings and traditions of men instead of God corrupted the Jews, it corrupted the Catholic Church and it has now corrupted most Protestant denominations as well. We must return to a true understanding of the faith as taught in scripture.

sola scriptura
sola fide
sola gratia
solus Christus
soli deo gloria

Another reformation? You're doubling down on insisting that the church doesn't exist. As I've said on other threads, Luther didn't like books like James being canonical for many reasons, not the least of which are teachings that faith without works is dead (you can't prove faithfulness by mental assent, which you can psychologize all you want) or that the church is the pillar of all truth.

Again, faith is best understood as a single term: faithfulness. But a small example of not knowing what you don't know if you just read it in XYZ language.

Only if you are a westerner would you even have an understanding that there must be a "return", which by definition means you are already lost.

The one, holy catholic and apostolic church mentioned in the creed still is present, always has been, and always will be.

Oh yeah to answer the question for a modern english speaker, Septuagint Old Testament OSB, the only english translation thus far (another protestant problem --- going with the masoretic texts) and King James or RSV, but of course, there are hermeneutics on every level, which is precisely why the Church is the pillar of truth. "How can I understand what I'm reading unless someone is guiding me"?

RSV:
[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
[31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Wise eunuch.

Apostolic succession.
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
It's quite telling that Kid Twist refers to the Catholic church as the "pillar of truth". But he's voicing a sentiment that's not uncommon. Many Catholics have a bad habit of elevating their "one, holy catholic and apostolic church" into primacy over Christ himself. It can be succinctly and correctly stated that Reformed theology is Christ-centric, while Catholic theology is Church-centric. It's no surprise then that Catholics tend to be more offended by criticism of the church itself than they are by criticism of the Lord they worship. Honest reflection on their part should give them pause on that front. The danger inherent in placing one's faith in corruptible human institutions should be obvious, and was pointed out repeatedly by Christ himself. The Catholic church is of the world, and the world is of the flesh. And the flesh does not profit. The Spirit alone profits, and it profits solely through Christ. The traditions of men do not hold equal place with the Word of God, and by placing such emphasis on the church itself rather than its head (Christ) you essentially create an idol to worship in his place.

So no, the Catholic church is not the pillar of truth. Jesus Christ is the truth, and the way, and the life. The church is simply an institution of corrupt and fallen men like any other on the Earth. Do you want to put your faith in men, or in Jesus Christ? It's your choice.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
scorpion said:
Do you want to put your faith in men, or in Jesus Christ?

Then why put it in Martin Luther? Not only did he falsely-translate scripture to suit his own beliefs, the man's arguments make no sense to me. I get the same screech of cognitive dissonance I get when I try to understand Social Justice Warrior logic. It's why I'm enjoying the older bible I'm reading. I'm starting to understand belief as if I'm observing the inner workings of an old pocket watch. Every single part is working in unison towards greater function.

I love the depth of what is traditional Catholic interpretation of the work, which still persists to this day. Take a passage such as Luke 5:1-10, most commonly-known for making Peter a 'fisher of men', which isn't even in the Latin or the Greek.



How beautiful is this analysis?



The depth of well-considered thought being offered to the reader, particularly in an era of twitter fights and sound bytes, is a rich and rewarding experience.

Still, it's surprisingly-modern for such an old work. A large chunk of marginal interjections - due to their limited space - can be summed up as eyeroll gifs.

You'll get a passage such as Luke 3:16:

John answered, saying unto all: I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

In the margin: How say then the Heretics that the Baptism of Christ is of no greater virtue than John's?



I'm often laughing out loud. I'm still trying to figure out how to work a great phrase like "The intolerable sauciness of the Calvinists" into everyday conversation. I'm sure Aurini could pull it off.

Anyway, I did manage to track down a modern spelling version of the work on Lulu. Everywhere I've compared it, it seems the same, other than lacking some of the heretical tables at the back.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-william...no-domini-1582/paperback/product-1254841.html

It came very quickly. That's the Rheims New Testament, and there's three volumes of the Douay Old Testament available as well. I ordered all four. Note they're heavy books - I'd probably get it in hardcover if I was doing it again. It's not easy to sit it on your lap if you're reading, unless you like crushed genitals.

Still, I prefer to read the print out of the older version - I feel a greater sense of being part of a tradition from it, but if you don't care about that, and you are a Roman Catholic, I can recommend the Lulu one, particularly if you suspect the weight of your personal sin requires greater responsibility and personal action than Luther believed: I understand I'm a Sinner.

Does anyone have experience with Fasting Rites? I've been getting that 'push' in the stillness a lot. Whilst I do the Eucharistic Fast, and the Friday fast, most of my eating involves my weight training, so whilst I eat a lot, I'm not indulgent about it. It's all healthy, and I usually eat the least of anyone I cook for.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
One other thing: I've spoken before about following the 'push' when it happens. Last Friday, I'd had a pretty rough night due to illness, but The Kid had an emergency that needed a lot of running around, which I knew I'd struggle to fit in before the Dentist.

As I've been reading, I offered bearing my sickness up as a sacrifice of penance.

Even in pain, and sweating furiously, I managed to get him all sorted and safely home with three minutes to spare to get to the Dentist. Luckily, his apartment is only a block from my Dentist, so I walked there.

By now, I was feeling damn terrible, and wanted to get home, so when the receptionist said he was running behind - very unusual for him - I could have gotten annoyed, or felt hard done by, but once again, I offered it up.

I went outside for some air, thinking I could just wait under a tree. For some reason, I thought of my grandmother, noticed the charity store across the road, and then got the push.

I poked around half-heartedly, trying to kill a bit of time. I've gone in there now and then - it's a good place to grab cheap cookbooks for The Kid, so thinking of that, I went over to see what they had.

There was a shelf of cookbooks there, and right in the middle of it, was a Sunday Missal. Only $1. Oddly, all the rest were cookbooks. I recognised the spine instantly: it's the one my Grandmother always carried on a Sunday when we went to church.

Now, I'd been growing more interested in what the weekly masses were over the previous couple of weeks, and even more so as I was too ill to go to the Feast of the Ascension the day before, so I tried to do some readings at home via the internet.

I flipped through the book, and there was the Ascension mass.

It's funny how you're always directed to the information you need, and I've noted that this kind of small grace of knowledge has happened before when I've offered up personal suffering to the Lord.

By the time I walked back across the road to the Dentist, he was ready for me after all. He's a good bloke. He noted what I was carrying, I explained the story. He cleaned my teeth, and then didn't charge me for my visit.

Funny how things work out.

Yesterday, my sister visited, and I told her what had happened, and she said "That's the same volume as [Our Grandmothers]!"

I wouldn't have seen it for 25 years or more, so I said it 'Looks similar'.

"No," she said, "It's the same version", and dived into her handbag, which resembles one of those clown cars for how much she can pull out of it. Inside, was a scarf, and inside the scarf, was our Grandmother's Missal. She was right. Perfect match.

I asked her why she was carrying it around, and she said "It seemed important."

All very odd, but not.

Now, I had to take some mail down to The Kid today, and I realised as I was waiting for him that I didn't get him any cookbooks the other day, due to the surprise, I guess. So, figuring I had 10 minutes to kill until he finished showering, I walked up the block and into the charity store for another look.

This time, right in the middle of the cookbooks, was a Thicker Missal. This time, The Weekday Missal. What are the odds?

It definitely wasn't there last Friday, because it has a very attention-grabbing spine. $2 this time.

I thought I was being guided to the Sunday Mass, but I think my reparations are going to require a daily commitment.

---

The thing though: these are post Vatican II works, and I'm on the Fatima side of belief, where we were foretold that the Church would been corrupted by Satanic Influences. This got me wondering what the Pre-Vatican II ritual for Mass was, because I've heard older Priests talk about how it removed many spiritual protections from the church.

Much like the bible, I realised I'd have to go pre-20th Century, before the Confraternity of the 30's and 40's started detracting from the word.

I found this book from 1909 online:

The Old Catholic Missal and Ritual

... and eventually found a vintage copy from a seller last night.

Since I grew up in a post-Vatican II, Novus Ordo church, with all the modern architecture, jokey 'i'm your friend not an authority figure' priests and beardy weirdy rock bands playing songs from Godspell that implies - including an unspoken feeling it turns out I shared with my Sister that there was a great absence in the middle of all of it, where God should rightly be, reading the older form of the mass is enlightening. As expected, that later absence strikes me as deliberate.
 
scorpion said:
It's quite telling that Kid Twist refers to the Catholic church as the "pillar of truth". But he's voicing a sentiment that's not uncommon. Many Catholics have a bad habit of elevating their "one, holy catholic and apostolic church" into primacy over Christ himself. It can be succinctly and correctly stated that Reformed theology is Christ-centric, while Catholic theology is Church-centric. It's no surprise then that Catholics tend to be more offended by criticism of the church itself than they are by criticism of the Lord they worship. Honest reflection on their part should give them pause on that front. The danger inherent in placing one's faith in corruptible human institutions should be obvious, and was pointed out repeatedly by Christ himself. The Catholic church is of the world, and the world is of the flesh. And the flesh does not profit. The Spirit alone profits, and it profits solely through Christ. The traditions of men do not hold equal place with the Word of God, and by placing such emphasis on the church itself rather than its head (Christ) you essentially create an idol to worship in his place.

So no, the Catholic church is not the pillar of truth. Jesus Christ is the truth, and the way, and the life. The church is simply an institution of corrupt and fallen men like any other on the Earth. Do you want to put your faith in men, or in Jesus Christ? It's your choice.

The catholic church is not the Roman Catholic Church. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is not what is now called the Roman Catholic church. That church, in fact, even changed this creed.

The church mentioned above in the creed is NOT of the world. It is IN the world. Big difference. And Christ is the head of the Church, so clearly what I say is not mistaken, since Christ was not of the world but as christians should be, in the world as sojourners, though the latter are not without sin as He is.

I correct you where it is needed, but of course agree that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The question you dodge is this:

"Who do you say that I am?"

Where would scorpion get the ability to understand who Christ is? And by what authority? It would not be from a book, or a translation, but by experience from those who were taught and by and followed him. That is the church. Anything else is a guess.

And yes, Lord have mercy.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
Just a quick note to whoever mentioned the biblical uses of Rue and Hyssop to me privately:

I mentioned Rue was a very dangerous herb, and can cause contact dermatitis, meaning, when the irritated skin is exposed to UV Light, this happens:



I was working out in the Greenhouse today, and was flipping through a book on herbs a female friend gave me the other day, and noticed this, under Hyssop:

'This is not the Hyssop of biblical writings, which is believed to be a form or Origanum'.

I did some research online. Based upon the biblical descriptions of where the plant grew and its uses, it's believed Biblical Hyssop is actually Origanum Syriacum, related to the Oregano and Marjoram family.

[img=800x600]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Origanum_syriacum,_March_2015.jpg[/img]

During the Passion, the Centurions put a sponge on a stalk of this, after Jesus says "I thirst".

Its most common use is in the Spice Blend also known as Za'atar, which mixes it with other spices and seeds.

Handy to know. It's an endangered plant in Israel and Syria, but you can still buy the seeds to grow it yourself.
 

sterling_archer

Hummingbird
We don't really have Bible discussion thread so I hope people here don't mind if I ask a couple of questions for the Bible scholars here. Even though New Testament is basis of Christianity, I am more interested in the Old Testament. I have some questions regarding things and events which are referenced in the OT.

1. Old Testament offers very interesting take on ancient history. Does anybody think the events such as destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were real events and what exactly caused them? What is up with the human longevity of several hundreds of years? Some say that events described are de facto description of ancient world war which even used nuclear weapons (!).

2. Who are the Nephilim? Are they offspring of fallen angels and human women or fallen angels itself? I think there is a great debate going on what exactly is that term referring to.

3. Some say that OT references aside from Yahweh other gods which are his enemies. In that case first command of the Tablets makes perfect sense. Does anything support that theory?
 
By the way, maybe some forget me as a poster, but isn't it obvious which church I believe is the one of the Creed? It is verifiable on many levels that the Septuagint text is more accurate and reliable than the Masoretic, if that's a hint, haha.
 

eskimobobseal

Pelican
Gold Member

Everyone here needs to watch that documentary ^^^^^^^^

The KJV is the perfect word of God in English. I think you'll find compelling arguments in the film posted above to prove it.
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
Let me preface my responses with some general context about the events of the Old Testament, and specifically the antediluvian period as described in Genesis. There is a tendency these days (unfortunately even among many professing Christians) to write these stories off as allegorical or mythological. This is a grave mistake, because without the Genesis account we completely lose our origin story, and nothing that follows really makes any sense. Genesis explains the fall of man and the corruption of God's creation through the entry of sin into the world. The entire rest of the Bible and the very incarnation of Jesus Christ himself are all consequences of the events laid out early in Genesis. If you throw out Genesis - and specifically the creation account and Adam's fall which resulted in original sin passed down to all his descendants - you might as well throw out the entire Christian faith, because it has no reason to exist.

sterling_archer said:
1. Old Testament offers very interesting take on ancient history. Does anybody think the events such as destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were real events and what exactly caused them? What is up with the human longevity of several hundreds of years? Some say that events described are de facto description of ancient world war which even used nuclear weapons (!).

In short - yes, they were real events. They were supernaturally initiated by God. And yes, human lifespans in the antediluvian period were much longer than today. We don't know precisely why this was the case. We can speculate that the physical environment of the Earth and possibly the atmosphere was far different before the flood and far more conducive to human health and thus an extended lifespan. It's also possible that the humans of the time - being much closer proximal relatives to the original created man, Adam - inherited DNA that was much less damaged degraded than our DNA is today after being passed down for many generations. But regardless of our speculations, the ultimate reason is simply because around the time of the flood God decided that men would not live for much more than 120 years (Gen 6:3).

sterling_archer said:
2. Who are the Nephilim? Are they offspring of fallen angels and human women or fallen angels itself? I think there is a great debate going on what exactly is that term referring to.

This is a topic that many Christians try to ignore, but I see no reason to do so. The Bible is very clear: the Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels (demons) and human women (Gen. 6:4). These men were powerful and evil and came to dominate the antediluvian world to such an extent that Noah and his family were among the only few remaining humans who had purely human DNA (Gen. 6:9 calls Noah "perfect in his generations"). Genesis 6:12 talks about how flesh on the Earth had been "corrupted". This all relates to the Nephilim. I believe the Nephilim are the root of the stories passed down through the generations of powerful lost ancient civilizations. They likely had technology and scientific understanding that mankind wouldn't match until thousands of years later. But they were completely evil. It was part of Satan's effort to wipe out humanity - in this case by simply out-competing them with superior demon/human hybrid stock. But God would not allow that to happen - hence the flood. As for why demons simply did not repeat this strategy again after the flood, the Bible is clear (1 Peter 3:19-20, Jude 1:5-7, 2 Peter 2:4) that God cast the offending demons into some kind of special imprisonment. And so, fearing this divine imprisonment, after the flood other demons were no longer willing to corrupt human flesh directly. So they now attack humanity more indirectly, encouraging us to sin and thereby corrupt our flesh ourselves.


sterling_archer said:
3. Some say that OT references aside from Yahweh other gods which are his enemies. In that case first command of the Tablets makes perfect sense. Does anything support that theory?

"Other gods" that were worshipped were simply Satan and other powerful demons that exerted influence on men. They were not and are not "gods" in any way comparable to the one true God, they were simply regarded as gods and worshiped as such by foolish, evil and/or credulous men.
 

sterling_archer

Hummingbird
scorpion said:
In short - yes, they were real events. They were supernaturally initiated by God. And yes, human lifespans in the antediluvian period were much longer than today. We don't know precisely why this was the case. We can speculate that the physical environment of the Earth and possibly the atmosphere was far different before the flood and far more conducive to human health and thus an extended lifespan. It's also possible that the humans of the time - being much closer proximal relatives to the original created man, Adam - inherited DNA that was much less damaged degraded than our DNA is today after being passed down for many generations. But regardless of our speculations, the ultimate reason is simply because around the time of the flood God decided that men would not live for much more than 120 years (Gen 6:3).

I don't get how Adam and Eve could have descendants. When they got Cain and Abel and Seth, how did they procreate further? There are no women mentioned and since this family was the first one created, it seems implausible that they got grandchildren.
Only explanation to me seems that Adam and Eve were first created but shortly later there were other couples created but they are not mentioned. In this case Adam and Eve are protagonists of the story of Genesis, but not only characters. Why are other families not mentioned, I don't know. What do you think about this?

This is a topic that many Christians try to ignore, but I see no reason to do so. The Bible is very clear: the Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels (demons) and human women (Gen. 6:4). These men were powerful and evil and came to dominate the antediluvian world to such an extent that Noah and his family were among the only few remaining humans who had purely human DNA (Gen. 6:9 calls Noah "perfect in his generations"). Genesis 6:12 talks about how flesh on the Earth had been "corrupted". This all relates to the Nephilim. I believe the Nephilim are the root of the stories passed down through the generations of powerful lost ancient civilizations. They likely had technology and scientific understanding that mankind wouldn't match until thousands of years later. But they were completely evil. It was part of Satan's effort to wipe out humanity - in this case by simply out-competing them with superior demon/human hybrid stock. But God would not allow that to happen - hence the flood. As for why demons simply did not repeat this strategy again after the flood, the Bible is clear (1 Peter 3:19-20, Jude 1:5-7, 2 Peter 2:4) that God cast the offending demons into some kind of special imprisonment. And so, fearing this divine imprisonment, after the flood other demons were no longer willing to corrupt human flesh directly. So they now attack humanity more indirectly, encouraging us to sin and thereby corrupt our flesh ourselves.

If the Atlantis and Lemuria existed, I think events before flood are regarding downfall of these two civilizations. There are some interesting sentences such as "they sinned against animals" which is interpreted in two ways. Some say this means that basically those people were degenerates and raped animals. Others say that they mixed animals and created hybrids, even mixing them with humans.
There were even some beings called Watchers mentioned. Not sure what is their allegiance.

Have you heard about this passage which implies that there were angels placed on Earth to rule their kingdoms, essentially representing God's rule on Earth? Jay Dyer mentions this in one of his articles:

8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.

There were at that time 70 nations, each having an angel as a ruler. These angels likely got their own appearance and way of conducting affairs so it is possible that ancient religions modeled their own gods according to these angels.

This is a very interesting article, look it up:
Angels and Demons: Or, How the gods Are Real
 
scorpion thinks on some level he can be taken more seriously, than say, St. John Chrysostom

No man is infallible (and it's not even a good term for the god-man), but why would I trust you over the guy I'm referring to above?

He is closer to the source, experienced more, and has more knowledge than you ever will.

This is not an attack, it's reality.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member

Aurini: I'm not here to bash on Protestants, but I was thinking more about how an Old Lebanese Woman described her youthful persecution by 'The Americans arming The Muslims' to me the other day, and was wondering more about the links between how Jewish Interests seem to influence the radical elements of both groups.

I thought you might find this interesting.

Islam and Protestantism have in common that they are both based on a direct analysis of the scriptures (the Bible for Protestantism and the Quran for Islam). This can be contrasted to Catholicism in which knowledge is analysed, formalized and distributed by the existing structure of the Church. Islam and Protestantism are thus both based on "a rhetorical commitment to a universal mission", when Catholicism is based on an international structure. This leads to possibilities of fundamentalism, based on the popular reinterpretation of scriptures by radical elements. The term "fundamentalism" was first used in America in the 1920, to describe "the consciously anti-modernist wing of Protestantism".

Islamic and Protestant fundamentalism also tend to be very normative of individuals' behaviours: "Religious fundamentalism in Protestantism and Islam is very concerned with norms surrounding gender, sexuality, and family", although Protestant fundamentalism tends to focus on individual behaviour, whereas Islamic fundamentalism tends to develop laws for the community.

The most notable trend of Islamic fundamentalism, Salafism, is based upon a literal reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah without relying on the interpretations of Islamic jurists or Imams, rejecting the need for Taqlid. Fundamentalist Protestantism is similar, in that the 'traditions of men' and the Church Fathers are rejected in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is seen as inerrant. Islamic Fundamentalists and Protestant Fundamentalists often reject contextual interpretation. Another similarity with Protestantism and Salafism is criticism of saint veneration, and emphasis on praying to God alone.

Protestant Desecration:


Muslim Desecration:
[img=438x246]http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1479079122912.jpg[/img]

As I said earlier, there's so much Heretical Doctrine that make no logical sense to me. Here's an excerpt from the Rheims I read earlier today, Luke 8:13, in the middle of the parable of the Sower of Seeds.

For they upon the rock; such as when they hear with joy receive the word: and these have no roots: because for a time they believe, and in time of tentation they revolt.

The margin note:

Against the Heretics that say faith once had can not be lost, and that he which have not faith, never had.

Read 8:14, and then try to understand the doublethink required by so many Americans preaching 'Prosperity' Gospels.

Eureka! I get it now. The Schism doomed the countries where it really took root. England, breaking away from Rome in the name of allowing the King to commit adultery also started outward expansion and the creation of an empire at the same time. With massive social divisions, it becomes a pompous and prideful nation, the fruits of which have now doomed its citizens - rapidly being replaced - the Anglican Church - with a mass falling away of parishioners, the rapid conversion to mosques - and even, now, its Monarchy.

Luke 4:5-7:

And the Devil brought [Jesus] into a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the whole world in a moment of time. And he said to him, To thee I will give this whole power, and the glory of them: for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I do give them. Thou therefore if thou wilt adore before me, they shall all be thine.

Jesus had the sense to refuse. England didn't.

Neither did Germany: forever a nexus of European Conflict, where the worst evils (Nazism, Martin Luther, Marx and Engels, The Frankfurt School, The Concept of Gender, and the Muslim Invasion) consistently arise. Who was the Saint who had a vision of Mary in the middle ages who pointed to two places on a map as being where the evil that destroys the world will originate? Germany and Russia.

America is founded by the Puritans who sought the Reformed Church was still 'Too Catholic'. It becomes a beacon of Success, Prosperity and Comfort, built on the exploitation of other cultures and destruction of other countries, and the nation becomes flooded by, then divided with those who think they deserve the prosperity and comfort that belongs to others against those who fear losing theirs if they're forced to share.

It's interesting. They're not prepared to forsake the material and temporal for Christ, which is why they're so often charged by the Left with being Hypocrites, particularly as Jesus teaches Poverty of Spirit. I fully-expect the final persecution of the Roman Catholic Church to come from there: the Zionists, united with the Jews.

That reminds me: I explained the Passion to Bill a couple of days ago, but I'll throw it into the Sigma Thread.
 
Top