sorry, it's jude 1:14-"About these also Enoch, the seventh from adam, prophesied, saying, "behold, the lord came with his ten sands of saints." check "online parallel bible"-it's a gem

Went to the Library and read part of it. A good read. Go to you library and see if they have this book:
Rabbi Jesus
An Intimate Biography
by Bruce Chilton

No book of weapons in the KJV bible.
There is a book called the book of Jashur, and a book called the sayings of the seers, but no book of weapons.

The New Testament does not refer to the book of enoch. The New Testament makes mention of what Enoch was preaching, in Jude. There is no reference to the book of Enoch as being the source for that. The book of enoch is regarded as a forgery.
There are other spurious books besides the apocryphal books: (forgeries)
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

A group of Jews that had the original Old Testament was living in Alexandria Egypt. In the first century, Christian missionaries from Antioch, Syria, carried copies of the New Testament books to them. A group of Egyptian philosophers in 3rd or 4th century Alexandria, Egypt, deliberately corrupted Old and New testament manuscripts, making any changes in them that they wanted. They changed about 5% of the words around. This is the corrupted Alexandrian text. The catholic bibles and most of the modern versions use this corrupted text for their bibles.
The King James version has the original unaltered Old and New Testament. - massoretic text OT, and byzantine or textus receptus, NT, translated into middle English. Luther's German bible and the Tyndale bible also are translated from the unaltered text.

Ah i really beg to differ on the many different Bibles. The KJV is the only one tru english version, folks. Its nasty how much of it is removed in the newer versions. (NIV included)

KJV - Edited
KJV vs. NIV

Many things are changed or taken out of context or simply left out altogather.
This can drastically change the way believers interpret the Word.

- Dark

Exactly

I guess that explains why there are two versions of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls (one is longer than the other and the first is what is in your bible!

Strange, since the Hebrews didn’t have an alphabet until after 900 BCE and the stories that they put in their book when they did write it in 600 BCE seem to have come from the religions of much older Semitic cultures (Babylon, Ur, Akkad, Sumer, Urgarit, etc) and since the Hebrew people did not exist as a recognizable (I’m going to play along with your Exodus fantasies for now) until after the Exodus, I fail to under stand how this scripture could be passed down from Genesis onward! Noah is not described as a Hebrew, nor for that matter is Abraham! The differences among the Dead Sea Scrolls weren’t great (except for Jeremiah), but they occurred in less than 200 years (from the Maccabean reconstitution to mid 1st century bce). Just remember, going into a debate with only faith and no knowledge is much like going into a gunfight with unloaded 6 shooters!

SURE, "UNALTERED" LIKE REWRITING ISAIAH!
isaiah does not say "virgin" thus undermining the entire premise of xianity!
you people are boring me, and ignoring what you don't want to hear...

well gideon, dont read it then...

well not to be mean but go to another thread that doesnt bore you then

that would make sense.

sounds like flaming or bashing.
my only response-learn a little hebrew...
read a jewish translation of the hebrew scriptures...
you might learn something.

is the a christian web site?i didn't know...
i was hoping to find some intellect here.

ok.. but if ur so bored leave the thread... there is no point in u being here if ur bored, correct?

no, i demand to be entertained...not preached at by followers of an imaginary religion that was never meant to be...

You are the one who sounds like they are flaming or bashing now...

LBD

It never ceases to amaze me how upset and rude some skeptics can get all because of a little thing called faith...

LBD

sigh... it never ceases to amaze me how so-called christians get all high and might and call on their empty "faith" when you can blow holes in their "religion" with a little education.if the writers of the n.t. lied about the virgin birth, then the whole thing is false.don't even talk down to me and call me a "n.b."-that is name-calling, or are christians subject to different rules here?i AM a believer, amd my beliefs are very strong.i will not degrade myself, as you have, by name calling.it just shows how ignorant you are that you have taken that path.shame on you!you are the one upset, because you refuse to face the truth.no virgin birth!learn some hebrew...your "religion" has caused countless deaths in the name of your false so-called god!i will pray for you

i will pray for you.

i like how you tried to undermine us christians gideon, but LBD is right, when someone has faith, regardless of what it is, sooner or later someone of the opposite faith is going to get mad..
and gideon, just because someone says the bible was changed around, prolly a non believer, doesnt mean that its true... you wont believe a book but u do believe someone's words??? how logical is that?

High and mighty? Hmmm... I always try to humble myself, but whatever you say...

And you can blows holes in my religion? Good luck, people have been doing that for years... Its nto my religion that matters, its my faith...

I dont see how you figure that? But believe what you wish...

I never talked down to you or called you a NB... So please keep your facts about what others say correct...

Thats great... Mine are different then your obviously... Have a little respect for others beliefs...


shame on me? I am ignorant? Hmm...
From some of your posts on this forum the same could be said about you... But I wont say it, because I don't want to degrade myself to name calling...

What do I need to learn hebrew for when theres always going to be people around like you just to tell me I'm wrong...

I don't blame God for what men have done in his name... That was the free will of those men...

Thanks, and I'll do that same for you...


LBD

gideon, the death that has occurred in the name of God.... how can u possibly believe that that is what the intent of the almighty is? proposterous!!! people have free will, given by God, to choose what to believe and to choose what to do... free will my friend... do you know hebrew? have you read the text yourself? how do you know it is true? or how do u know it wasnt "altered" like you say the bible is?

Every one please take a breather before the MODs come down on all.

so you don't care that isaiah doesn't speak of a virgin birth, and the writers of the n.t. lied!one single lie is more than enough to prove fabrication.the writers of the n.t. didn't speak hebrew, which proves that they were a later fabrication.which part of "false religion fabricatated as a tool of oppression by the roman empire" do you not understand?
i will pray for you

who are you praying to???

ONE WORD-virgin-the hebrew uses a word for "young woman"-the n.t. says "virgin"how dare you accuse me of saying these deaths were in the name of god-jesus is certainly not god-please read John chapter 10, verses 31-35.don't confuse yeshuah ben yosef with yhvh. i will pray for you...

i'm praying to god, not dead-jewish-carpenter-on-a-stick

yeshuah ben yosef... sorry but who is that?

John 10
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

Yes, this is very respectable of you to say...

read
John 1:1
John 1:3
John 1:4
John 1:14

LBD

jesus son of joseph in hebrew

supposedly, the quote i mentioned is from jesus.why dispute him and quote nonsense for the writer of john?so what if they said some gobbledy-gook about the word?jesus alledgedly, said we are all gods.

Man that was cold..honestly..

Dont come preachin about respect and like everyone else here is sayin, dont come bashin our religion. Dont care if ur a Christian, ex-christian, ex-con, arab w/e doesnt matter..but that was sum seriously cold shyt..just cuz ur so sure that w/e we may believe surely cant be tru, u go and make a cut like that? So what if we believe. SO WHAT!! Why the hell is it so hard for u to comprehend faith..

Damn man you make it so personal whenever sumone shows they believe...

John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
8. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

gideon... just cut the rediculous bantering.. ok? we can discuss this like adults, right? ne way, regardless of what u believe, all truth will be found when the end comes.... sooner than it is thought..

Man that was cold..honestly..

Dont come preachin about respect and like everyone else here is sayin, dont come bashin our religion. Dont care if ur a Christian, ex-christian, ex-con, arab w/e doesnt matter..but that was sum seriously cold shyt..just cuz ur so sure that w/e we may believe surely cant be tru, u go and make a cut like that? So what if we believe. SO WHAT!! Why the hell is it so hard for u to comprehend faith..

Damn man you make it so personal whenever sumone shows they believe...
[right][snapback]518449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
why is it so hard for you to comprehend knowledge?
the word was not virgin.

u know, its funny, thats the only thing u've said to "prove" us wrong.... get some new material... ur like the NB version of ken1burton

so now u name call?

[quote=GIDEON MAGE,Mar 9 2005, 03:44 PM]
Man that was cold..honestly..

Dont come preachin about respect and like everyone else here is sayin, dont come bashin our religion. Dont care if ur a Christian, ex-christian, ex-con, arab w/e doesnt matter..but that was sum seriously cold shyt..just cuz ur so sure that w/e we may believe surely cant be tru, u go and make a cut like that? So what if we believe. SO WHAT!! Why the hell is it so hard for u to comprehend faith..

Damn man you make it so personal whenever sumone shows they believe...
[right][snapback]518449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
why is it so hard for you to comprehend knowledge?
the word was not virgin.
[right][snapback]518495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"A Virgin shall Conceive and Bear a Son"

In this lesson, let's look at Bible reasons for believing in the virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that the word in Isaiah 7:14 must be translated virgin.

In the first place, the prophet Isaiah states that God will give a sign. Remember the source of this sign is God. God gave it. That makes it authentic in every sense of the word. Furthermore, a sign is something special. What sign would it be for just any maiden, or any young woman, to conceive and bear a son? Multiplied millions of women have conceived and born children through the centuries. The latest statistics in the United States show that more than four million women gave birth to children last year. What is unusual about this? Is the prophet telling us that this had reference to an ordinary, everyday occurrence of the birth of a child whose mother was a young woman?

Let's look at the word "sign" as it is used in Isaiah and also in Matthew 1:23. The Greek word in the Old Testament Septuagint (LXX) is "semeion" and it means, as defined by the Hebrew and Greek scholars: "A sign by which anything is distinguished; proof, pledge, evidence." The definition is continued in these words: "a wonder, remarkable event, wonderful appearance, extraordinary phenomenon, miraculous operation, a wonderful work, a miracle." Does the God-given sign in Isaiah 7:14 refer to just any maiden who bears a child?

Do the mothers who give birth to their children in our hospitals every day in this, or any other, country meet the criterion of this definition? Is it some kind of a miraculous sign, an extraordinary phenomenon, when a young woman bears a child? It makes you wonder what the translators of Isaiah 7:14 were thinking when they rendered the word young woman instead of virgin. Where was their scholarship? Where was their reasoning? The conception and the birth of a child is a remarkable work of God. Only God could cause this to happen; but He now effects it through established natural law which He inaugurated long ago.

Another reason for believing that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin, and is so considered in Isaiah 7:14, is the interchange of the Hebrew and Greek words in that passage. The Hebrew word for virgin in the passage referred to is "galmah," and means an unmarried female. Solomon used the word in Song of Solomon 6:8: "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number." The Septuagint, our oldest translation, rendered the Hebrew word "galmah" by the Greek term "parthenos" and here is its meaning: "A virgin, a maid, chaste, virginity, Luke 2:36." The Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 is: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; behold a [the] virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Immanuel." Matthew translates this word, virgin, from Isaiah 7:14, and as Isaiah called her the virgin, in the Greek text, so, she is also said to be the virgin in his record of Matthew 1:23.

Thayer, in his lexicon, treats the word virgin, parthenos, in this way: "a virgin, Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; of a young bride; a pure virgin, II Corinthians 11:2; a marriageable daughter." The word is also applicable to men: "a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom, and so has kept his chastity; one who has never had commerce with women." If this word for virgin applies to a man who has never copulated, or cohabited with a woman, would it not also apply to the woman who has never experienced sexual union with a man?

Taken from this Link: Virgin Mary

Another good read: Virgin Mary Link 2

- Dark

I've noticed things are getting heated in here in the last couple pages.
We'll have no flaming or silly comments of any kind. Keep it civil, or don't converse at all, otherwise the topic will be closed.

[quote=GIDEON MAGE,Mar 8 2005, 01:15 PM]
The New Teatament was written in the first century, and in 381 the books were just compiled into one collection.
[right][snapback]516454[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i was trying to be kind.did you know that the existing churches were ordered to send the council of constantinole what they considered to be the n.t.?the concil picked and chose whatever they wanted to be the n.t., and carefully rewote it to take out the loopholes.they also burned all the originals that the churches sent them.amazingly, we still have a lot of "apocrypha" like the gospel of thomas, which the council obviously disapproved.it's nice that you also ignored all the other details i mentioned, like voting jesus as god and inventing the trinity.i should have expected such a response.you completely disregarded most of what i said....typical behavior.
[right][snapback]516503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did you know that there were real Christian churches following the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the apostles, from the first century onward that never had anything to do with Rome or the Roman catholic church. The roman councils are conscerned with roman catholic history, and not the history of the true Christians.

Let me give you a more accurate version of church history:
The Roman emporer Nero (reigned from AD 54-68) regarded Christianity as a threat because Christians would not recognize Caesar as a god. If Christianity would spread, he would lose control of the people. Nero paid spies to set up false Christian churches, (many were in Jewish Synagogues), to lure true Christians into these churches so that they could be arrested and killed. Under orders from Nero, his spies, pretending to be Christian, set fire to the city of Rome. This was done to justify the massacre of the true christians; the fire was blamed on the Christians and they were to be put to death in the arenas. For over 200 years following this, Rome persecuted Christians and killed them, but Rome was unable to stop Christianity. The Roman emporer Constantine, (reigned from AD 306-307 took advantage of the growing wave of Christianity by saying that he had become a Christian. He issued an edict of Tolerance proclaiming that Christianity is to be tolerated and it is to be accepted as the new Roman religion. This is the true beginning of the Roman catholic church and it happened long after Peter was dead. Peter died somewhere around AD 67. When Peter was alive, there was no Roman Catholic church. When Peter was alive, Nero was killing Christians in the arenas as enemies of the State of Rome.
The Roman Empire was never converted to true christianity. The emporer
Constantine and his servents created a new state religion for Rome that
was a mixture of pagan Roman religious tradition mixed with christianity
and they called it catholicm. Only this false Roman form of christianity
was to be allowed by the state of Rome. The true christians that
practiced Christianity the way that the Bible says to do it, were hunted
down by the Roman state and killed. The true christians realized that
satan had created a murderous religious monster (catholicism) and tried
to call it christian. The true christians ran for the hills. By the time that the protestant reformation was about to start, the catholic church had become so corrupt, that they were torturing and murdering people to steal their lands and properties, the pope got half and the king of Spain got the other half. Any real Christian, that knew the true teachings of Christ in the New Testament, could easily see that the catholic hierarchy was evil and corrupt and catholicism was not a real Christian church. That is why the protestants, that were in the catholic church, broke away from it and returned to the original teachings of the New Testament to find true Christianity. There were always isolated groups of Christians that followed the New Testament from the first century onward, and they were never members of the catholic church. These are the ones that Rome tried to hunt down and kill and they ran for their lives and hid out in isolated places. They had the original unaltered Old and New Testament, the massoretic text, later compiled by the massoretes, and the byzantine or textus receptus new testament. These texts were copied word for word and handed down as parchiaments got too old. The real texts, of the real unchanged original scriptures were translated into middle English in the King James bible.
Let a cardinal himself tell you about roman catholicism.
Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "temples,
incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, Holidays, and
seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of the fields,
sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, munks and nuns),
images, and statues... are all of PAGAN ORIGIN." The Development of the Christian Religion Cardinal Newman
p.359

I fully expect this thread to be closed shortly because it is taking up so much space. So I will post what I read to be true and not care what anyone thinks about it.

The vatican has been lying for centuries to claim Peter as the first pope, and to claim that he is buried at the vatican.
Read this book:
Peter's Tomb Recently Discovered in Jerusalem, published by F. Paul Peterson, P O Box 7351, Ft. Wayne IN 46807, copyright 1960
The apostle Peter's body is not buried at the vatican. There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome.
The title pope, or roman pontiff, is a title that comes from the old pagan roman religion; it has nothing to do with christianity as described in the new testament.

Helluva post man..thanks

i am making my final comment---to try to evaluate the hebrew scriptures on the basis of the new testament is like saying that stephen king's works should be used to disprove something in shakespeare.the hebrew word was not virgen, you cannot alter the text and deliberately misquote it.unfortunately for the christian church, the jews just refused to be crushed, even for 2000 years of your repression and massacres!they tried to destroy the evidence by burning the library of alexandria, but ot no avail...and thank god!
if not for that single deliberate mistranslation, we would never have the absolute proof that the n.t. as we know it today is a deliberate falsification by the council of constantinople, which, by the way, was under theodosius, so even your roman history is fallacious, my friend antiaging, i don't know at what protestant website yoiu fget your info, but it's wrong.i read your link, and it is bad scholarship to take something from one period to disprove an earlier writing...isaiah simply dioidn't speak greek, and the writers of the n.t. didnt read hebrew, or they would have made such glaring errors...end of discussion.

Since the Christian community (empire and world wide) less than 3 decades after the supposed crucifixion might have numbered 2 or 3 thousand people out of several million subjects, I doubt if Nero ever knew Christians existed...He did recognize the Jews and the problems they presented and all of the supposed edicts against the Christians were actually directed towards the Jews (of which Christians were considered a very minor sect of)

Another Christian urban legend, at this time there were probably fewer than 100-150 Christians in Rome.....Why would Nero pick on Christians - because they refused the recognize the Ceasars as God - get real, many many many different groups of people refused to do so, including the Jews who were a thorn in the side of the Romans. The Romans were very lieninent to other religions, so you are way of base (as are all Christians) on this matter.....

Actually, non Christian Historians and Essayists don't mention Christians very often...they do mention Jews and others. Christianity was a very small religion until after Constantine elevated them to Official Religion status, then they could get their hands in the coffers of the Empire and the rest is history and the pattern of theft, murder and torture of nonbelievers was set for the next 1700 years!
In "The Development of the Christian Religion" did Cardinal Newman admit that the Christian hordes devastated the economy of Rome by their avarice and theft of the assets of the Pagans? This did happen and can't be covered up! Incidentally, nice attack against your Mother Church! If it weren't for them there probably wouldn't be a Christian religion today! - CD

Aside to "Lover of God", why should he get new material, you lot have been using the same tired old mythology for 1700 years! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Gideon.

You sound like you might be Jewish. You know Hebrew, You believe in God, But not Jesus. You pray. This is an assumption which does not mean a lot either way as far as this thread.

But consider this:

(EXODUS 13:12) That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that
openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast
which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord's. (KJV)

Since when does a Child coming OUT of the Womb open the Matrix??? The Woman would have to be a Pregnant Virgin to have the Matrix unopened so the Child would be the one to open it? (Any Doctors in the House?)

(LUKE 2:23) (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male
that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) (KJV)

I have only heard of one Child that Openeth the Womb. They laid Him in a manger in Bethlehem.

The Jewish nation as a whole, was sealed from seeing Jesus is the Messiah. Till 2029 ad that is. Joshua chapter 3, they were to wait on the side of Jordan 3 days, When they saw the Ark, and the Levites bearing it up, to follow after it, But stay back 2,00 cubits, a similitude for following after Jesus 2,000 years after seeing Him raised on a cross is 29 ad.

(ISAIAH 29:10) For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of
deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your
rulers, the seers hath he covered. (KJV)
(ISAIAH 29:11) And the vision of all is become unto you as the
words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot;
for it is sealed: (KJV)
(ISAIAH 29:12) And the book is delivered to him that is not
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not
learned. (KJV)

(JOSHUA 3:3) And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the
ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the
Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go
after it. (KJV)
(JOSHUA 3:4) Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about
two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may
know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way
heretofore. (KJV)
Seven years before 2029 ad, they will start burning the weapons, all the arguments against Jesus being the Messiah will be going up in smoke. Then for seven months they will be burying the bones or putting the pieces where they belong (Can these dry bones live?). Then they will accept Jesus is the Messiah, then any bone that remains will be seen, set a marker, till it can be buried where it belongs in Truth.

This is God’s time table, and God does nothing without showing it first.


Consummate.

I like that “If it were not for the Mother Church there probably wouldn’t be a Christian Religion today.” Sounds great, Unless you see a REAL God, and a REAL Christ who have a hand is what is being shown to those who seek Him. If Organized Religion never started, God would still be just as active to show us today what He is like. He was using Jesus as a physical Messenger, a Physical Savior, And now they have a joined with us in the Spirit to keep that going for World without end.

Christians see that what you are calling “Tired old mythology” as a FAMILY HEIRLOOM.

Ken.

PS Deep convictions clash, Indifferance seldom argues.

What? Jesus never said that...


Amen to that...

LOL
No calling names now LOG....

You show a total lack of respect for others beliefs, then you whine when you feel disrespected? Sorry it doesn't work like that...

Thats BurnSide, but its only getting so heated because the respect from one another has degraded far to much...



LBD

I have posted many times that I respect others opinions and beliefs and feel we should all do same I will try peacemaker role again. Lets all just make our points without attempting insult others or their beliefs it tend to make your point less credible.

So what, you're saying that the Collesiums were all a hoax? That there never was a sport made of watching Christians being killed? I mean clearly if Nero never knew Christians existed, he couldn't have used them as lion feed every afternoon. Ya, real leneant towards other religions.

- Dark

sorry bout that LBD, i just wanted to point that out.... actually, someone else pointed that to me and i wanted to share it.... lol...but sorry anywayz...

Its all good LOG, I thought it was funny...

thats why I put the after the "no name calling"

LBD