|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Date: 12/20/2001 8:44:00 PM From Authorid: 43655 I've never heard of this book. Is it an apocryphal book, or is it included in the Catholic Bible? -Captain Skeezix- |
Date: 12/20/2001 8:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I've never heard of this book either. I know of others that are not in the bible and after reading some of them I can see why they are not in the bible, some of them dont even line up with the bible and are really confusing. What is this book your talking about??  |
|
Date: 12/20/2001 8:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
OH and yes, I'm satisfied with my bible just the way it is. |
| Date: 12/20/2001 8:59:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 It is in the catholic bible, Old Testament. Hugo |
| Date: 12/20/2001 9:25:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I figured you were, FB.(: Hugo |
Date: 12/20/2001 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 35178
i heard somewhere that those books were added afterwords...but i dont remember where. there are alot of things about catholism that i dont get...like why you pray to mary??? why you tell your sins to a priest???? confess your sins to jesus..he died for them. all you have to do is confess them to him, there is no middleman.  |
| Date: 12/20/2001 9:53:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Written afterwards? After what? Hugo |
| Date: 12/20/2001 9:55:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Maybe Protestants would understand "the one true catholic and apostolic church" more if they had the complete Bible, instead of a Reader's Digest version of it. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/20/2001 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 35178
actually i dont know...i asked someone that once and thats what they said...i was only sayind something i had heard...i know there are lots of differences between the two, i dont even know what they all are. what do these books talk about? who wrote them? i am really curious. my old preacher was once telling me some differences but that was so long ago. |
| Date: 12/20/2001 10:09:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The Catholic Bible was first compiled in the 4th Century. The modern Catholic Bible today is composed of the same books accepted then. In the 16th Century a mad monk by the name of Martin Luther initiated a schism. Dividing "the one true catholic and apostolic church". He and his henchmen decided that they would abbreviate the word of God by eliminating a few books which did not agree with their rebel philosophies. Hugo |
Date: 12/20/2001 10:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 47588
I don't know why it was left out, but since it was "condensed" hundreds of years ago....I don't see that any of us now are accountable for it. In my opinion, you are blowing off a bunch of nonsense to make yourself feel better. Besides, that is what makes religions different. Who's to say what you think is any more correct than what anyone else thinks. Brenae  |
|
Date: 12/20/2001 10:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 35178
actually back then the catholic church had become so polluted. all the high priest and the like were telling many lies such as if you paid them money you could purchase a little piece of paper from them clearing you of a sin. if you didnt pay well your screwed. oh and i learned that in history class. marin luther actual nailed some falsies of the church up for all to see things that the church said and did that went against what the bible says. |
|
Date: 12/20/2001 10:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 35178
do you know who wrote the books though? |
| Date: 12/20/2001 10:27:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Nailed up some falsies, eh. Hope the ladies back then did not miss the extra padding. The Book of Sirach was written by Jesus. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/20/2001 10:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 35178
jesus! really i didnt know that. well not to me as being a protestant i really do i have to investigate. to me it does seem strange that these books if truely written by Jesus would be taken out. hmmmm. time to research. |
Date: 12/20/2001 11:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Interesting post, Hugo. If the Book of Sirach was written by Jesus, why wasn't it included with the New Testament? (Does this imply it was written during the 400 silent years?) It is my understanding that the Apocryphal books were not included because they were not quoted by Jesus or any of the apostles. Apparently, they also contain contradictory ideas to books already judged to be divinely inspired. Alfrowi.  |
|
Date: 12/21/2001 5:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 10146
Sirach 3:1-9 Listen to me your Father, Oh Children, act accordingly, that ye may be kept in safty. For the Lord honors a father above his children, and he confirms a mothers right over her children. Those who honor their father atone for their sins, and those who respect their mother are like those who lay up treasure. Those who honor their father will have joy in their own children and when they pray they will be heard. Those who respect their father will have long life, and those who honor their mother obey the Lord; they will serve their parents as their masters. Honor your father by word and deed, that his blessing my come upon you. For a fathers blessings strengthens the houses of the children, but a mothers curse up roots their foundation. Here is a sample from the book of Sirach! Does it disagree with the Protestant compiled Bible of today? Or at least does these few words from it, (SO FAR) disagree with Protestant Bible? Love in Jesus Name.  |
|
Date: 12/21/2001 5:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 10146
Hugo, I believe Jesus is God, And God Is My Father! God himself Incarnated himself in the Man called Jesus, Therefore Making Jesus my Father! If Jesus Wrote this book, as you say, then does He (JESUS) say in verse One of Sirach 3:1 that He "IS" the Father, when he says LISTEN TO ME YOUR FATHER! In Jesus Name. |
|
Date: 12/21/2001 7:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
I just figure hugo that God is powerfull enough that the books that are in the bible are the ones that HE wanted in their. I know that there are many books, even the bible says, there are many books written about Jesus, what He said and did, and thats great. However, If God wanted them, these other books in the bible they would be there. That of course is my opinion. |
| Date: 12/21/2001 8:34:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach, was the author. Sorry if I inadvertently gave the impression it was another Jesus. Hugo |
| Date: 12/21/2001 9:45:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 FB, why did God allow a Bible with extra books for 1500 years?Hadaam, I see nothing in the Book of Sirach that is not consistent with the rest of the OT. I am just wondering why it and other books were purged from the Bible by Protestants. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/21/2001 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 47588
Because technically, the OT is the Hebrew law. We, as Christians, today do not have such establishments. Doesn't the laws of our nation change as needed? So in respect the law of our God should also change to help the people now. I agree with FB, if God wanted us to "know" all the books he would've had them put into the book we would use as a worship guide. Why did it take us this long to find artifacts from the time of Jesus, because God let us find them when HE was ready. Brenae |
| Date: 12/21/2001 9:58:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Brenae, all the books were already found before the protestants sifted out a few. My question is why? Hugo |
Date: 12/21/2001 10:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 18824
Hugo the part about one true Catholic apsotolic is in the Niecence creed that we use in our service I am a Lutheran and the only real differences I see are we do not have private confession we do do it as a congregation and in our hearts kust not to the Reverand and we do not pray to the Virgin Mary and marriage is not a scarement only Babptism and The Lords supper meaning only that the Lords supper is not apart of our weddings other then that Catholics and Lutherans are very similar and the falsies were called the 95 thesies not falsies and much of the schismhad to do with the selling of indulgences to buy a deceased loved ones way out of purgetory and also marrige of the clergy as you stated Martin Luther was a monk and his wife was an X nun  |
|
Date: 12/21/2001 11:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 35178
the protestants didnt include it because the hebrew ruled the books to be not inspired by the word of God! **short angel** |
| Date: 12/21/2001 1:26:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Why should they take the Hebrew opinion over the prevailing Christian opinion? The Hebrews do not believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God either. Hugo |
| Date: 12/21/2001 8:45:00 PM From Authorid: 32386 The Book of Sirach, as well as some or all of six others, is found in the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament. Although it comes after the original Hebrew one, it was, by the time of Christ, acknowledged as Scripture. There are approximately 300 OT references in the New Testament, either by Jesus Himself or by one of the apostolic writers. Of those 300, fully 250 of them are from the Septuagint, which includes Sirach. If Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint -- on which the CATHOLIC Old Testament is taken -- it shouldn't be too hard for honest Protestants to know what they should be doing also. Peter (Rock_CIA) |
Date: 12/23/2001 6:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
Why do people even associate the word Catholic with the term Christian? They kiss idols, pray to saints (gods & godesses), pray in "vain repititions as the heathen do," forget, yes even EDIT OUT the only commandment that begins with "Remember", making the sabbath the 1st day instead of the 7th, they tell us to call the priests "father" when Jesus said to call no man father upon this earth, they teach that the pope is infallible, then each pope spends millions on trips around the world issuing apologies for the actions of the pope's before him, they tell priests "father forgive me, for I have sinned" when the Bible says "Who is this that speaketh heresies? No man can forgive sins save God alone!" - and people are all too ready to ignore the very meaning of the word "protestant". PROTEST-ant. People who protest AGAINST the heretical, pagan perversion that is Catholicism. Leave their books, their editings, their dogma far away from justifying a post entitled "Protestants, Why?" I will now consider and answer the question Hugo posted  Vert.  |
|
Date: 12/23/2001 8:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
AMEN VERT: Gosh I wish you were around when J>T> was here. I could have used the help with this CAtholic thing he was so fond of using and saying IT WAS WE christians. Thanks. I hope you wont mind if I cut and paste this for futher use on a differnt forum?? thanks. |
| Date: 12/23/2001 8:32:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Possibly because the apostles taught these same things. Why did God command the making of a golden serpent? Catholics do not worship statues, more Protestant hogwash. Hugo |
| Date: 12/23/2001 8:34:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 You avoided the question Vert. Why were certain books sifted out by the Protestants? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/23/2001 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Hugo, you said "Catholics do not worship statues" - well I was in a catholic church just the other day and they were kissing the feet of a statue, praying in front of another one to the saint it stood for, etc. That, my friend, is idol worship. And I am not avoiding any question of yours. I ended my post with "I will now consider and answer the question Hugo posted " - I am still reading into it, and I may give a professor a call to make sure I get the story straight. Unlike yourself, I will never avoid a direct question. Vert. |
| Date: 12/23/2001 5:49:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Unlike yourself Vert I will accept mainstream media as evidence.We have a Catholics, why? post up to address the questions Protestants are bringing up on this post. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/23/2001 5:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
That's fine! Accept the mainstream media as evidence. You can do that and still answer my question, can't you? Bear in mind though that all through history, the most blatant propoganda IS mainstream. Back to usm192907.html Vert. |
| Date: 12/23/2001 8:35:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The only propaganda that makes the history books is mainstream propaganda. Hugo |
Date: 12/23/2001 10:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Good questions, Hugo. I'll do a little digging around and see what I can come up with. I know very little about this subject, but the reasons which comes to mind right away are that some of them were either a)unverifiable as to authorship/authentication or b)just plain silly  The book of Maccabees is considered "history" only and not inspired. Again, I could not tell you why --this is only what I have been told.  |
|
Date: 12/24/2001 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
Precisely. Vert. |
| Date: 12/24/2001 4:24:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Rusure,and others, the complete catholic Bible can be found at www.nccbuscc/nab/bible. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/24/2001 8:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
hugo are you sure that is the addy as I tried it and it said it couldnt come up?? |
|
Date: 12/24/2001 9:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Some of its false doctrines are the worship of the virgin Mary, Purgatory, Idol worship, the Papal authority, Penance, and many others. Purgatory is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, it is a doctrine without any foundation. This doctrine also takes away the completeness of Jesus redemption for us. Idol worship is a breaking of the second commandment of God. In spite of the protest of some Catholic apologists, Who insist that their images are only to help the believer, to concentrate in his devotion. Kneeling or prostrating before an idol does constitute worship. Many Catholics will not attend a protestant church, because the Pope has decreed it to be a mortal sin, of the which there is no forgiveness,One of the chief means by which the Papacy has enriched itself at the expense of the people is by means of the doctrine of Purgatory. By this teaching first proclaimed an Article of Faith in 1439 by the Council of Florence and subsequently confirmed in 1548 by the Council of Trent, the Church of Rome teaches that all who die at peace with the church but who are not perfect, must suffer purification in a mythical intermediate state, or place for departed spirits. The Creed of Pope Plus IV states:- "I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful." Bellarmine taught that:- "There is absolutely no doubt that the pains of purgatory ... endure for entire centuries." St. Thomas Aquinas said that:- "It is the same fire that torments the reprobate in Hell and the just in Purgatory." Ya, I think they worship idol and I believe that they think that THEY are the ones to tell your sins to, they do not have the power to forgive sins. |
|
Date: 12/24/2001 9:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I think I need to go to bed. LOL that is if my insomnia will allow it. I'll have to fight you on this another time, OH i'm sorry if some of my remarks hurt you in anyway. Hugs. |
| Date: 12/24/2001 9:23:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Try it again FB. I just doublechecked that is the correct address. Hugo |
Date: 12/25/2001 12:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Hi Hugo..Thanx for the link..It worked for me.. FB's fingertips are probably too sore and not operating right from pounding on the keyboard so much.. *hiding under my desk*..hehhehe..Anyway, from what I read in the added books,they seemed to be written as if an individual is simply writing down a story..If you will notice that in every book in the KJV there is an important person/people,lineage,events,prophesies,etc all leading to Jesus,beginning in Genesis all the way to the Book of Malachi..When I read the books that were added by the Catholic,I see no real purpose for the books to be included in the Bible..Read the difference between the Books of Ruth and Esther and Judith and Tobit..Ruth shows a definite link to Jesus as Obed was the father of Jesse,who was the father of David..Esther was the niece of Mordecai and a chosen Queen and responsible for the deliverance of God's people.. Judith and Tobit are simply stories..The book of Baruch says nothing that hasn't already been said,a repeat..The book of Sirach sounds as if the author copied from the book of Solomon..Also, Who was Sirach?? Who was Solomon?? Sirach is not mentioned in any other books of the Bible,neither is he a direct lineage of Jesus..The Maccabees are never mentioned in any other books of the Bible and has nothing that hasn't already been said..Every Book in the KJV has a purpose and has a very important lesson..It is obvious that God didn't simply throw together some Books that served no real purpose..At one time,I couldn't really understand why the Song of Solomon was in the Bible,but after a careful study,I began to understand that this Book is symbolic to how Christ feels about His Church as well as to show us how passionate a man and woman can be towards one another..So,as I said,all the Books that are in the KJV are there to serve a purpose..Why add others which serve no real purpose?  |
|
Date: 12/25/2001 12:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Another thing Hugo..I am not saying that those added books are false..They could very well be a part of history as Paranoid mentioned..They may have been stories/books written by perhaps devout people,but they were not inspired of God.That is the difference..I see nowhere that they claim to be inspired of God.. |
|
Date: 12/25/2001 6:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 10146
Rusure DeerHart, You are so correct in your responce in My Oppinion. Only wish I would have exsplained it that way! But Are you familiar with A book of Books intitled "The Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgotton books of Eden"? There are many books in it that directly link to Our Now compiled Holy Bible which has ( in Some Cases) more indepth Learning that Applies with our Holy Bible. There are books in the Lost Books of the Bible that I do Feel are inspired. If you have never read them you could not know Im sure. But If you should ever read some of those books you would see I feel, (Unlike, What You And I feel About the Appocripha) that There are some very Good and wonderful Writings that Are very much inspired that Links with the Writers of Our Compiled books we know today as The Holy Bible. Love in Jesus Name. |
|
Date: 12/25/2001 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Thanx Haadam..Really though,the way I see it is this..Our Creator didn't need our help nor our knowledge when He created this world..With a thought He can do whatever He sees fit..I do believe that from the beginning that man has had the entire Word of God,either by direct intervention or on paper as we do now..Our Creator has always judged mankind by His Word which He has given unto us..I firmly believe that we do have ALL that is necessary pertaining unto the expectation and the righteousness of God.We are and have always been supplied with all that is necessary for the salvation of man..I do believe that there are many writings of devout men of God out there that has been uncovered by archeologist or ones that has been passed down from generation to generation,etc by men of God,BUT..I do not believe they were meant to be included into God's instructions unto mankind.. There is nothing that has been overlooked by God in which pertains to the salvation of mankind..I totally trust in God's wisdom and power..I firmly believe that when Revelations was written and sealed,and we were warned not to add to nor take away that God meant just what he said..His Word is complete and it would not be a hard thing for Him to see to it that His Word remains complete for mankind throughout all ages and mankind can never improve it..I firmly believe the KJV was authored by vessels of His choice and there need not to be anything else added to nor taken away.. Man is always trying to improve everything and they will not stop even when it comes to the Word of God..Just take a look around us and we can plainly see where man's so called improvements takes us..God is still in control of His true Word to mankind and it will never change..There may be imitations,and man made books claiming to be of God,but we will always know the difference if we turn to God and sincerely seek His wisdom and guidance... |
|
Date: 12/25/2001 4:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
I agree entirely with Rusure. Hadaam, God created EVERYTHING. That makes Him more than powerful enough to include absolutely everything we need to know in the Holy Bible. I would be very, very wary of supposedly good books that never 'made it in.' There are likely to be subtle differences in doctrine that divert from the clear Word. God knew exactly what He was doing when He left those out. I had this exact argument with my step-father, who claimed to have a more accurate interpretation than the KJV. The KJV, after being burned and banned by the Catholics, is the World's #1 Best Seller (yes even in 2001), so I know it's God's word - unchanged. Vert. |
Date: 12/25/2001 6:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 27678
Hugo, I can't answer this question without more and intensive research into the history of the Bible, as it is. So, when I am finished with a few days research, I'm going to get back to you. This is a bookmarker, although Haadam, Rusure and Vert all had great things to say.  |
| Date: 12/25/2001 7:46:00 PM From Authorid: 43655 I think that ALL of the books in the Bible, including the Apocrypha.....AND the writings of ALL of man's religions are MORE or LESS inspired. There are varieties and degrees of inspiration. -Captain Skeezix- |
| Date: 12/25/2001 8:12:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Might want to check the Canon of Palestine out, FG.Hugo |
|
Date: 12/25/2001 8:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 27678
Will do, Hugo. |
Date: 12/26/2001 2:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Hmmm.. Interesting amounts of judging here  . Poor Catholics. I hope any people of Catholic faith do not see this. As far as Idol worship if you are to ask that of a Catholic what is to stop them from asking what that lil Cross hanging on your neck is .. Peace2Ü  |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 2:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
That any people of was supposed to be many people of .. Sorry.. AOL deletes letters.. Cannot help it |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 4:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 10146
Rusure, and Vert, I could not agree with you two men more, When it comes to the Fact that Mankind needs nothing More in written form to teach us of God's wonderful Salvation through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Of how the plan of How and Why God loved us So much to come and Die in our sted is more than Enough to Teach and Convince mankind of his Loving and Saving Power! But I am not too sure that "SOME" (by all means not all) of the books that were taken away from the 2nd Century Church is nessasarily Our Lords doing, but rather His allowing. For Mankind under Satans influence can be the ones that took Away from Gods Word. Rather than Some today feeling the need to add it back. Yes, It is true, Our Father, preserved Enough of His Perfect plan to deliver us! But Also, We today have the Living Power of the Holy Spirit that will descern for us any Scripture that may have been Truly Inspired by God, but that Man after some time had removed, to Cripple (Not Destroy) the Other things that God has done. I am always open to God through the Power of His Sweet Holy Spirit to descern for me "ANY" untruth whether it be from You, I, or even a lost book from the Bible. If you and I did not have this comforter we would not know what, at all, we should believe concerning the True Creator God, in the kind of World we live in today. With its all New Found Religions that supposedly is called God. But I Respect your concerns and your Faith in Beleving in Only the Compiled Holy Bible, that is written in the King James English. The only Problem I have with it (Which Is None) that King James could not translate somthing that had already been removed, before he began his Translation Proccess. My Love and Respect in Jesus Name. |
| Date: 12/26/2001 9:01:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Bought a Snickers bar this morning, judged it was better than a Milky Way. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 12:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Ummm! Hugo I say Nestle's crunch bars are better even though I do like Milky Way bars..nananana and a :P |
| Date: 12/26/2001 2:08:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 You are being awful judgemental there Rusure. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Wicked, there is no cross around my neck, and although I love the people, I have no sympathies for the institution that tried to destroy the Bible. Once they realized that God would not allow His Word to be destroyed, they tried to accept it but change it. Their current version of the 10 commandments, for a start, is totally changed. They edited out the graven images (2nd) commandment and split the envying (10th) commandment into 2 parts so the total = 10. Hugo, that is why I am VERY skeptical of whatever happens to be in the Catholic's Bible. They tried to destroy it with fire the first time. Now they are destroying it by changing the contents within. I will not accept any questionable book that is accepted by an institution who is intent on destroying God's Word. I say "is intent" because they still are. And if they're not, well then there goes that infallible Pope doctrine. Vert. |
| Date: 12/26/2001 7:13:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 You would think Protestants would be happy the Roman Church preserved the Bible, possibly with a few extra books, for nearly 12 centuries before ML came along. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 7:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Oh Hum Bug Hugo..I was genetically predisposed to be judgmental..:P |
| Date: 12/26/2001 8:15:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Genes sure are hard to overcome, are they not? (: Hugo |
|
Date: 12/26/2001 8:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
So are habits and desires to have one's own way |
|
Date: 12/27/2001 5:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
"...the Roman Church preserved the Bible, possibly with a few extra books, for nearly 12 centuries..." Umm. You have some research to do Vert. |
| Date: 12/27/2001 7:33:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Where did MLget his bible from. What Bible was he speaking of when he claimed the Roman Church was not following the Bible? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/27/2001 10:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
The one he read was chained to a Catholic pulpit. That's the problem. Keeping the Word of God hidden from the "ignorant masses." What makes you think the Catholics preserved the Bible? Does't the author of a post on the history of the Bible even know the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery? Vert. |
| Date: 12/27/2001 11:23:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Was not the King James written before the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery? Hugo |
|
Date: 12/27/2001 2:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Dead Sea Scrolls, found 1947. King James Bible, printed 1611. Martin Luther's 95 Theses exposing Catholic doctrines directly contradicting God's Word: 1517. 94 years before the KJV. Keep up the research! Vert. |
| Date: 12/27/2001 3:05:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 I do not know where you are coming from Vert. Leaving out the books winnowed out from the OT by the Protestants, what are the differences betweeen the Catholic and protestant bibles? Hugo |
Date: 12/28/2001 1:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Editing. Editing. And more Editing. The Catholics see themselves as having the power to change the Words of God. They openly state this, repeatedly, in the Catechism. Whether it's adding books to the Bible, or changing the words inside. What is our purpose? "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Ecclesiastes 12:13. Let's see how the Catholics have twisted each aspect of our purpose. Take the Lord's Prayer. Note that the Catholic Bible leaves out the ending "...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Catholics STOP here) For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory, for ever and ever, Amen." Why? Well the kingdom (church) and glory are the Pope's are they not? That's why they leave it out. Is this so important? Well, consider Jeremiah 13:16; "Give glory to the LORD your God...before your feet stumble" and Revelation 14 ; "...Fear God, and give glory to him..." Fearing God (taking Him seriously, truely respecting Him) is part and parcel of giving glory to Him. By not giving Him glory, we are neglecting our first duty according to Ecclesiastes 12:13. Now to the 2nd: "...keep his commandments" part of the our instruction - I will get the full text from the Roman Catholic Bible and post it in a new thread. A breief description follows here. Vert. |
|
Date: 12/28/2001 2:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
The Roman Catholic Bible has eliminated the 2nd Commandment, split the 10th into two so that the total remains the same, and DELETED whole portions of the 3rd, 4th and 5th (their 2nd, 3rd and 4th) Commandments!!!! By these sickening changes, and the ones listed above, among many others, two things become immediately obvious: The Catholic and Protestant Bibles are totally different and have been since St. Augustine at least. Therefore, the Catholics did NOT preserve the Bible, as you suppose, but changed it. God Himself, through righteous men who were not sucked in by the false teachings of the Papacy, preserved the Textus Receptus translation of the original manuscripts. Wycliffe (who the Catholics so hated that they DUG HIM UP, BURNT HIS SKELETON, and scattered his ashes into a river AFTER his natural death, by which God denied them the pleasure of killing him) wrote the English version of the Bible first, and he was no Catholic, nor did he draw the text from the Catholic translations. When you study the history of this translation, you can see God's hand in so many ways that you become convicted this is truly His Word. The King James Version was translated in England under instruction of Prince James who would take no other instruction but the pure word of God. It was printed on Gettysburg's presses in 1611. It is a fact that the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are 1) Not at all the same, nor have the same history or translators, and 2) Catholicism did in NO WAY preserve the Protestant Bible, as you suppose, but had the Bibles burnt in bonfires along with 'heretical protestants' such as Luther, Joan of Arc, Wycliffe's skeleton and millions of others. Their own Bibles they chained to the pulpit and openly stated that the Word of God is too noble for us idiots to understand, therefore they must always be interpreted to you by a priest who can safely ensure that you don't go and get any new ideas. I hope this helps answer your question on the differences between the Bibles, and why I have no problem leaving out a book the Catholics added into their own version independently of the Textus Receptus. If you need more examples I will go on. Vert. |
|
Date: 12/28/2001 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Looks like Rusure and Vert have a pretty good grip on this one I don't believe I can add much more to this conversation. |
|
Date: 12/28/2001 3:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Except this: in the newer Catholic Bibles they now state that the book of Genesis is considered mythology, and that its purpose is like a storybook or fables for us to glean knowledge from. This is a dangerously humanistic point of view if I have ever seen one! Less than 100 years ago, this would have been considered sacrilege and the authors would have been condemned by this same Catholic church. Inconsistency is NOT what Christianity is about. |
Date: 12/29/2001 1:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
The fact is Protestant too change the bible all the time.There are a certain group who for some reason the KJV is the only correct version.Matthew 6:13 (end of Lord's prayer) "Subject us not to the trial but deliver us from the evil one." NAB, St Josephs Edition. Sounds like the same meaning as "Lead us not... Catholic teaching is that the Bible is not a science book. Which as Paranoid states is a philosophical change. Hugo |
| Date: 12/29/2001 1:42:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 One man's opinion of the Textus Receptus. "Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis of collations, it could be mercilessly forgotten. What a tragedy,then,that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to foue centuries!" It was a hastily compiled and error filled document. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/29/2001 6:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Who is that "one man" Hugo? I have some non-Christian historical professors he needs to speak to about that completely misinformed statement. Vert. |
| Date: 12/29/2001 8:34:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 See www.skypoint.com ,Vert. Amazing the sloppiness behind the Textus Receptus. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/30/2001 4:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Skypoint.com is an internet service provider, heh. Did you just call God sloppy? If not, prove an error in the Textus Receptus for us. Or at least link me to a place where I can contact that 'one man' please. Vert. |
| Date: 12/30/2001 6:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html. The complete address. Erasmus hurriedly put the Textus Receptus to print. There were many errors. By the way Erasmus was Roman CATHOLIC. the authors of The KJV actually seems to have relied primarily on two texts which did not completely agree. Some would argue any creature whos' prime creation was man has to be a bit sloppy. Hugo |
| Date: 12/30/2001 7:03:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 "Even accepting the fact the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza'. F.H.A. Scrivener,...concluded it was none of these. Rather it is a mixed text, closest to Beza with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly identified with any addition.(no doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here)Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus" Hugo |
| Date: 12/30/2001 7:14:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Boy, I never realized what a hatchet job the KJV was before. Hugo |
|
Date: 12/30/2001 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL Hugo! I actually prefer the EARLY NAS as it is almost (notice I said almost) error-free on its Hebrew/Greek to English translations. The NIV is irritating, the KJV is archaic. The New KJV (NKJV) is actually very accurate as well. And despite the "hatchet-job" you claim on the KJV, it too is better than many other versions available. |
| Date: 12/31/2001 11:46:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 That Erasmus guy was quite a politician. He could put Clinton and Reagan to shame. Hugo |
|
Date: 1/1/2002 3:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
"Some would argue any creature whos' prime creation was man has to be a bit sloppy. Hugo" There you call God sloppy again! Sloppy compared to WHAT might I ask? What have YOU created that's more complex, versatile and runs so smoothly as the human body (when on the right fuel)? His prime creation was sinless man. We made bad choices and became the sloppy ones. Would you rather be a robot? Was including freedom of choice into the mix a sloppy move? Although it is totally fruitless to debate something like Bible versions with somebody who has such a blasphemous viewpoint on God's abilities, here is my standpoint: God created everything we see in 6 days flat. Is it not possible to hasten the production of an English version of His Word? Is all the harmony of nature (except when intefered with by sloppy us) a hatchet-job? Who cares about Erasmus' philosophies? He never wrote the Bible, merely translated it. What happened when the seer Baalam was sent to proclaim a curse upon Israel? God turned the curse in his mouth into a blessing so that he could not curse God's people, only bless them! Yes, the historical existence of Baalam has been proven, in the right place, at the right time of the Biblical account. A scroll of his writings has even been found. Now since God did that to Baalam, how much more could he do so to Erasmus? The KJV obviously does NOT reflect the Catholic viewpoint, however Catholic Erasmus may have been, or they would not have tried to obliterate it by burning and pronouncing anthema on anyone who read it! The reason I believe that the King James Version is God's intended English translation of the Bible, down to the very choice of words, is because He so blessed it that it came out of attempted oblivion to become, even for 2001, the #1 best-selling book around the globe. Only an omnipotent, non-sloppy God could accomplish that. Vert. |
| Date: 1/2/2002 8:52:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Erasmus translations are the main source of the KJV. You can not ignore Erasmus when debating the reliability of the KJV. Why did God create a creature that has such a hard time utilizing free will to make the correct choices?The fact that the KJV has been a financially succesul endeavor has nothing to do with religion. I think a jewish philosopher stated you cannot worship both God and money. Hugo |
|
Date: 1/2/2002 4:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Hugo, I honestly wonder if you bother reading my replies before responding to them. I did not "ignore Erasmus" as you have just said - I mentioned his name 3 times in the above post! I'm not going to repeat it here, lift your eyes and READ. Secondly, if you have a hard time utilizing your free will to make correct choices, don't blame God. Ask Him for help. Thirdly, the KJV was NOT a financially successful endeavor because it is the ONLY version in circulation without a Copyright. Therefore anybody can sell it and nobody gets levies. As such, your statement about worshipping money is invalid. In any case, the real statment was by Jesus and said that you cannot worship God and man (yourself). Vert. |
| Date: 1/2/2002 5:11:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Those publishing the KJV are making money from it. The original Textus Receptus of Erasmus was a success.Even though it was hurriedly put into print in order to beat out a rival publication.You stated,"who cares about Erasmus's philosophies".He never claimed to be divinely inspired and it is my standpoint the world took billions of years to reach the point it is today. God (or evolution) gave man the common sense to avoid fire, why not the sense to avoid other harmful things such as sexual promiscuity?Hugo |
|
Date: 1/3/2002 5:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Hugo, you're rambling =] What point do you want me to answer on? Monetary gain, Erasmus'deepest private thoughts, divine inspiration, evolution, common sense vs. pain, God's existence, or immorality? You're confusing this post, but just in case you are asking these questions honestly seeking answers, I will take the time. Erasmus was inevitably guided by God in translating His Word, whether he wanted to be or not, just like Baalam. There are a few things God just does not stand for, like cursing His people and confusing His Word. I am willing to embark upon a healthy debate on evolution when it's kept in the thousands or low millions of years. When you get to billions though, all common sense is already out the window because the sun would have to have been huge back then, going by it's rate of burnout, and this planet would be burned to a crisp if not melted to molten lava, depending on how many billions back you want to go. If you want to insist that life comes from explosions, that's your perogative. It's never happened, nor will it. Explosions bring about death and destruction. Tell me this, is standing in a fire more about pain or pleasure? Which is sexual immorality about? And yes, some people do throw aside common sense and walk on fiery coals, just as some people throw away common sense and go for sexual immorality. It's called the power of choice, and if you can't handle it, it's because you aren't asking your Creator for His help. Try it! Vert. |
| Date: 1/3/2002 8:41:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Why did God allow his word to be confused for 1600 years? I will stick to one subject at a time, do not want to overwhelm you by giving you two things to think about at once, Vert. Hugo |
| Date: 1/3/2002 8:47:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Catholics have their Popes, Protestants have Erasmus. Hugo |
|
Date: 1/4/2002 5:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
Oh boy you did give me 2 things at once! eeek! LOL... Hugo, God's Word was never confused for 1600 years, it just wasn't in English. We have GOD's Word, not Erasmus'. You obviously never took your time reading my post again, because I said that GOD worked through Erasmus, and every other translator and writer to preserve His pure word. As for the Papal line, did you even know there is NO biblical OR historical record of Peter ever going NEAR Rome? Did you know that the whole belief of Peter as Pope is based in the Clementines? Rome even admits on page 41 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV: "...we learn that the earlier editions of these works made James and not Peter head of the Church." Enough said! Vert. |
|
Date: 1/4/2002 5:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
I know Peter would have been appalled that “Christianity” took the title “Pontifex Maximus” and applied it to him. That was the title of the pagan high priest of Rome during his lifetime. Vert. |
| Date: 1/4/2002 4:37:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Winners get the titles.Christianity won. hugo |
|
Date: 1/6/2002 5:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
Catholicism, which today pronounces over 100 anthemas (USM won't let me put the Catholic definition here - let's go with the dictionary's "cursed" on people who believe only the Bible, does not qualify for the title of "Christianity." |
| Date: 1/6/2002 1:43:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Several hundred million people disagree with you. Hugo |
| Date: 1/6/2002 2:06:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Jesus said his word would always be with us. The protestant claim is that for a millenia and a half it was not. Hugo |
Date: 1/6/2002 4:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
No Hugo, he said "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Heb 13:5, Deut 4:31, 31:6, 31 , Josh 1:5) For a millenium and a half, the Word of God just was not in English - it was always with us. And I would only be worried if the majority agreed with me. They've never once been right on issues of faith (except for right after the flood, HEH). Did the majority recognise Jesus as their Messiah? Vert. |
Date: 2/18/2002 6:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 27028
hugo do you actually give a sh*t?  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
