(2 Kings 1:10)
Friday, 17 February 2017
Son of Baal and sons of Zeus !
(2 Kings 1:10)
Thursday, 16 February 2017
Paul and his 500 unknown witnesses ?
------------------
we conclude by Paul's own admission
Corruption!
Bible confirms this "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
The Revised Standard Version makes even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!
(Note the Hebrew text uses the word Torah) so the text should says " How can you say we are Wise and have the Torah of the Lord with us when the scribes have altered it and made it into a lie!"
------------------
See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses of the bible predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.
The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.
Monday, 13 February 2017
Yahweh called himself Baal!
Sunday, 12 February 2017
Jonathan struggles to answer a simple Question!
Saturday, 11 February 2017
The Bible alteration is more recent than the introduction of the Happy Meal.
We have evidence of changes that
have been made to the Bible, which many Christians regard as the infallible,
untouched, and uncorrupted Word of God.
The key
question is, where can these alterations be found?
They are found within the Torah,
a text read by both Christians and Jews. Let us examine the relevant passages
and investigate the claim that corruption entered the text.
The New American Standard Bible is a
popular English translation, a revision of the American Standard Version of
1901. It was completed in 1971 and then revised and updated in 1995. I want to
highlight one major change in one passage of the NASB — a case in which the
1995 update alters — and is intended to reverse – the
text of the 1971 NASB.
Those
dates are important in understanding the reason for this change. …
----------------
Now, let
us look at the analysis of come critical Bible verses which have been edited in
the context of contemporary views on abortion which brings us to the text
I want to highlight here as another example of politicized distortion via
translation: (Exodus 21:22-25.)
Here is
how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of
its 1971 original translation:
“And if
men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has
a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as
the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life
for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25)
You can
see how this fits in the context of the chapter. Here is another category of
victim for which another set of punishments for violence is given. If a
pregnant woman gets struck “so that she has a miscarriage,” but is not herself
injured, then the man who struck her must pay a fine. But if the woman herself
is injured, then the same rules and punishments for striking any other
(non-slave) person apply — “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”
But here’s
the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:
“If men
struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives
birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the
woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But
if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25)
“So that
she has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “so that she gives birth
prematurely.”
Wait…
what? Why the distinction between miscarriage and premature birth with no
injury (presumably to the fetus/baby)? Because this change in the text
fits with the new view on abortion which started to pervade U.S. politics
starting in the late 1970s:
Here's
what happend :
something
changed between 1977 and 1995 — something that had nothing to do with
scholarship, language, accuracy, fidelity or readability.
American
politics had
changed between 1977 and 1995. It had polarized and radicalized millions of
American Protestants, rallying them around a single issue and thus, as
intended, rallying them behind a single political party.
In 1977,
the sort of American Protestants who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be summed
up in a single word. But by 1995, they could be: “abortion.”
And for
anti-abortion American evangelicals, Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It
suggested that striking and killing an unborn fetus was in a separate category
from striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill a free person, you get
the death penalty. Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a fine.
And so in
1995, like those earlier translators who invented and inserted “Junias,” the
translators of the NASB reshaped this passage. “She has a miscarriage, yet
there is not further injury” would, in consideration of the changes in American
politics since 1977, henceforth be transformed into “she gives birth
prematurely, yet there is no injury.”
Politics —
specifically, the political desire to control women — shaped the translation of
that text. The translators changed the words of the Bible to
make it seem like it supported their political agenda. They changed the words
of the Bible so that others reading it would not be able to see that its actual
words challenged and contradicted their political
agenda. …
Conclusion :
So the
Bible is the “unchanging and inerrant” word of God Almighty, according to these
fundamentalists who “read the Bible literally”… until, apparently, it says
something that they don’t like. And then, what’s the solution?
Apparently, the solution is to change the text to say what they want it to
say. Isn't this sufficient evidence proof that the bible has been changed
recently.
Imagine
due to certain legal policy the words of the bible change!!
Doesn't
this remind you of what the book of Jeremiah said?
How can
you say we are wise and have the Torah when the lying scribes have changed it
(Jeremiah 8:8)
Friday, 10 February 2017
The (Real) Ten Commandments (EXPOSED)
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Did King David and King Solomon have the law with them?
"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests "
Nowhere did King David or King Solomon write for themselves in a scroll the law of Moses. Nor did they abide by the law which King David had instructed his son to keep and follow.
King
David did not punish his son Amnon for raping his sister Tamar why? Read 2 Samuels
13. Rashi says man can marry his step sister.
2 samuels 13:13
Because he will not keep me
from you. I am permitted to you because my mother became pregnant with me when
she was still a gentile, pretty woman5The laws concerning the
taking of gentile woman during war is discused in Devorim begginning in 21:10.
The Torah calls her a יְפַת תּוֹאַר, “pretty woman.” that Dovid took conjugally in war. And someone who has a son or
daughter from a gentile handmaid is not considered his child for any legal
matter.
-------------
Jesus of the NT did not inherit the throne
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests (Deuteronomy 17:18)
If Jesus took the throne of David, Luke 1:32 when did he write his own scroll of law of the priest & follow it?
Deuteronomy 17:19 further states:
"It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees"
Tuesday, 7 February 2017
Are they all gods?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...
-
Related post from before: https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/what-is-the-minimum-age-of-marriage-according-to-jewish-law/ ...
-
From http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/explaining-tongue-sucking-hadith.html : It appears Islamophobic rabble-rousers on...
