Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah but at least the KJV is the only version that was written by an actual "ISREALITE" (GODS CHOSEN). All the other Version were basically written by men in our time hahahhah .
P.S. All the other versions were written to further confuse people, not to clean it up. You cant edit GOD'S WORD, thats why GOD said DONT ADD ANYTHING TO IT OR TAKE ANYTHING FROM IT and thats exactly what they did in all those "newer" Versions of the BIBLE. They did a switcheroo on the people hahah.
BTW: They edited the KJV to hide the True Color of Jesus as well as the true Color of Isreal (Everyone knows that) duhh.... oooops Did I just say that. Oh well... the truth hurts.
After the death of Queen Elizabeth the First, King James became the first over England, Great Britain, France and Ireland from 1603 – 1625. He was the son of Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scotts who was the daughter of King Henry the 8th. Queen Mary was also sister to Queen Elizabeth, having different mothers. They were Celtic, Anglo Saxon, and Israelite Jews.
The Israelites fled with many Scrolls and Icons to England under the protection of King James the 1st. In 1607 AD the Holy Spirit moved King James to nominate 47 learnt men and 12 final advisors to produce the 1611 Bible with the Apocrypha. These Israelites or Jews were the best Hebrew and Greek translators of the time. The Almighty Yahawah (GOD) saw 2000 years into the future and caused the 1611 bible to be preserved in English above all others knowing this world be the top language of the rich and poor today. This move offset the lying revisions of the Romans Catholic Church to destroy the Bible and cut Israel off from being restored as a nation in these latter days (psalms 83:1-5 Rev 3:3-7)
This is why its important that you research History.
After the death of Queen Elizabeth the First, King James became the first over England, Great Britain, France and Ireland from 1603 – 1625. He was the son of Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scotts who was the daughter of King Henry the 8th. Queen Mary was also sister to Queen Elizabeth, having different mothers. They were Celtic, Anglo Saxon, and Israelite Jews.
The Israelites fled with many Scrolls and Icons to England under the protection of King James the 1st. In 1607 AD the Holy Spirit moved King James to nominate 47 learnt men and 12 final advisors to produce the 1611 Bible with the Apocrypha. These Israelites or Jews were the best Hebrew and Greek translators of the time. The Almighty Yahawah (GOD) saw 2000 years into the future and caused the 1611 bible to be preserved in English above all others knowing this world be the top language of the rich and poor today. This move offset the lying revisions of the Romans Catholic Church to destroy the Bible and cut Israel off from being restored as a nation in these latter days (psalms 83:1-5 Rev 3:3-7)
This is why its important that you research History.
Aside from sheer fantasy, the rationale is hilarious.
Here's a clue -- the Early Modern English isn't Modern English. Mutually intelligible, sure, but hardly the version of langauge any omnipotent (or even halfway intelligent) person (or superman-in-the-sky) would use as the "top language of the rich and poor today". Today, that would be the 21st Century American version of Modern English. Up until about 15 years ago it would have been 20th Century British version of Modern English. But Early Modern English was already becoming obsolete by the year 1700 as the language as the alphabet was refined, as vocabulary continue to shift and evolve, as syntax continued to develop (dropping of the T-V distinction, etc.), and so forth.
If you're going to make up baseless claims in an attempt to shoehorn your wishes into reality, at least make up baseless claims that are semi-logical. Of course, not making up nonsense is preferable, but I think we both know that's asking far too much of you...
...but he really wasn't anything special in his day. He was a dime a dozen, which is (some scholars speculate) why there are no accounts of his life other than those written decades later.
Hmmm. Yet, this Jesus, real or merely a figment of fantasy writers, continues to be the most relevant topic of conversation--of ALL TIME! Strange, I find it, for a figure that supposedly never existed: behold the energy expended to assert or deny; the seemingly in exhaustive supply of commentary, both pro and contra; the on-going debate(s) regarding said figure's bona fides--or lack thereof. All this for one whom we are to believe is/was merely an historical contrivance? I'm just saying...
You have a point. There is a lot of energy, time, and study spent on this figure because so many people worship him. I would imagine quite a lot of energy, time, and study is also spent on Muhammad, albeit probably not as much in the west. That doesn't make the reports about him true, however.
When people try to base the lives of themselves and others, their governments, their wars, their education, their entertainment, etc. on the life and teachings of a person, that person will unavoidably become the object of much study and debate. No one here in the States cares as much about Vishnu or even Muhammad because their creation stories, their views, their teachings are not infringing on others. See, it's not really about Jesus; it's about what people say Jesus or his teachings make them or lead them to do.
Jesus is an example of a perfect human. Obedient, peaceful, willing to die for a cause, etc. There are many versions of Jesus across different cultures and civilazations. Horus, Buddha, Krishna, Mithras, etc.
...but he really wasn't anything special in his day. He was a dime a dozen, which is (some scholars speculate) why there are no accounts of his life other than those written decades later.
Hmmm. Yet, this Jesus, real or merely a figment of fantasy writers, continues to be the most relevant topic of conversation--of ALL TIME! Strange, I find it, for a figure that supposedly never existed: behold the energy expended to assert or deny; the seemingly in exhaustive supply of commentary, both pro and contra; the on-going debate(s) regarding said figure's bona fides--or lack thereof. All this for one whom we are to believe is/was merely an historical contrivance? I'm just saying...
What correlation is there between the degree to which a purported person is discussed to the likelihood of their existence? I daresay Robin Hood has been discussed millions of times more often than my great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother of maternal lineage. Indeed, I don't even know the identity of this great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother of mine. But she existed. Did Robin Hood? And by your logic, in the past, thousands of years ago, the most talked-about person must have existed. I'd wager the Egyptians discussed Ra quite a bit. More recently, the Aztecs, discussing Quetzalcoatl. Surely, by your logic, Hercules and the Minotaur existed, no? In fact, again by your logic, when Christianity was still in its infancy, say around the year 50AD, it is all but assured that there were many mythological figures who at that time had been discussed in far greater detail than Jesus -- so then, at that time, they must've been "more true" than Jesus.
Which is why what you are trying to pass off as "logic" is anything but logical.
Jesus is an example of a perfect human. Obedient, peaceful, willing to die for a cause, etc. There are many versions of Jesus across different cultures and civilazations. Horus, Buddha, Krishna, Mithras, etc.
Socrates, don't forget Socrates. And Gautama(the Buddha) died from food poisioning not from being sentenced to death.
Nothing on your page is contemporary -- it all comes from accounts written well after Jesus purportedly lived, based on what others said. That's like me (born in 1969) testifying that the Roswell Incident of 1947 really was a flying saucer because, well, a lot of people who live when I live claim it was.
And while your silly Pilate link purports to hold something he wrote (it even lists him as the "author") it only refers to a reference, centuries later, to a Roman document referring to Pilate (and presumably to Jesus, though conveniently the original is long lost).
Ancient repetitions of word-of-mouth claims are about as useful as 14th Century documents referring to oral tradition that Robin Hood merrily lived a century before.
Drivel doesn't get any less drivelous with repeated postings...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
