PROOF: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God

[qxcontinuum]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

????? 

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesMiddEast/MesopotamiaSumer01.htm

Perhaps shouldn't have said with certainty. They found the city of uruk with a tumb that appears to be royal, then USA invaded Iraq. Many say the USA rushed in to invade Iraq after the discovery was made. Furthermore interesting is that us has indeed taken artifacts from the site.

The article briefly touches base about the discovery. There was a documentary on Netflix with a lot more details and interviews with the archeologists.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-returns-iraq-rare-tablet-bearing-portion-epic-gilgamesh

Edited August 16 by qxcontinuum

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, qxcontinuum said:

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesMiddEast/MesopotamiaSumer01.htm

Perhaps shouldn't have said with certainty. They found the city of uruk with a tumb that appears to be royal, then USA invaded Iraq. Many say the USA rushed in to invade Iraq after the discovery was made. Furthermore interesting is that us has indeed taken artifacts from the site.

The article briefly touches base about the discovery. There was a documentary on Netflix with a lot more details and interviews with the archeologists.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-returns-iraq-rare-tablet-bearing-portion-epic-gilgamesh

The USA didn’t take that particular artifact from a site apparently and it had been passed around through various owners with a fake provenance before Hobby Lobby turned it over as an illegal artifact. Nowhere is the alleged Tomb of Gilgamesh mentioned or in evidence.
 

cormac

Edited August 16 by cormac mac airt

[Piney]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Hobby Lobby 

cormac

****ing Green Family is another bunch that needs to be in prison.

[+Desertrat56]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

I thought the whole point was the actual Book of Enoch was lost.  There have been other books lost from the Bible, and the Bible itself testifies to the holy books having been lost, and not used for a long time, and then someone found the holy books and said “what are these?” I think it was Hezakiah?  He may have even torn his clothes over it?  I don’t recall at the moment.  The point being, many Bible books have been lost, and I thought Enoch was one, along with Jashur.

They were lost becausde Constantine's 'priests' determined they would not help thier purpose of compiling their bible.   The point was to create a religion that would give them more control over more countries around the world.  And look how well it worked.   The roman empire still thrives.

Edited August 16 by Desertrat56

[Guyver]

32 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

They were lost becausde Constantine's 'priests' determined they would not help thier purpose of compiling their bible.   The point was to create a religion that would give them more control over more countries around the world.  And look how well it worked.   The roman empire still thrives.

Interesting.  How did you come to know this?

[Piney]

39 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

They were lost becausde Constantine's 'priests' determined they would not help thier purpose of compiling their bible.   The point was to create a religion that would give them more control over more countries around the world.  And look how well it worked.   The roman empire still thrives.

Erp...No..

The New Testament was a product of Athanasius of Alexandria. The Old Testament "apocrypha" was pretty much rejected by both Jews and Christians because it's inauthentic ancient writings. Like Enoch. 

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Interesting.  How did you come to know this?

She guessed...

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Erp...No..

The New Testament was a product of Athanasius of Alexandria. The Old Testament "apocrypha" was pretty much rejected by both Jews and Christians because it's inauthentic ancient writings. Like Enoch. 

Yet erotic poetry like The Song of Solomon made it in with a wink and a nod. Go figure.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yet erotic poetry like The Song of Solomon made it in with a wink and a nod. Go figure.

That's because men were in charge of it's composition. 

[Guyver]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yet erotic poetry like The Song of Solomon made it in with a wink and a nod. Go figure.

So true!  Interesting the Christians accept the Song of Solomon, but reject things like Ecclesiastes and criticize Solomon, considering him a sinful heathen pagan because of his many wives and concubines. So hypocritical !  They claim the Bible is Gods word, but think he’s too dumb to figure out who should be allowed to write it’s books.

[Piney]

21 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So true!  Interesting the Christians accept the Song of Solomon, but reject things like Ecclesiastes and criticize Solomon, considering him a sinful heathen pagan because of his many wives and concubines. So hypocritical !  They claim the Bible is Gods word, but think he’s too dumb to figure out who should be allowed to write it’s books.

Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) was rejected by the Protestant Bible. Not the Catholic and Angelican version.

It's actually one of my favorite books. 

[Guyver]

Just now, Piney said:

Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) was rejected by the Protestant Bible. Not the Catholic and Angelican version.

It's actually one of my favorite books. 

Same. A true proto-scientist that wise master Solomon.

[Piney]

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Same. A true proto-scientist that wise master Solomon.

Oh, Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) are 2 separate books. 

Ben Sira was the wisdom teachings of Jesus Ben Sira and the teachings are better.

It was removed from the Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is in all versions of the Bible. That's where you mixed me up.

Ecclesiastes was written somewhere between 450 and 180 BCE by many authors one possibly named Solomon. But not THE Solomon.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Oh, Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) are 2 separate books. 

Ben Sira was the wisdom teachings of Jesus Ben Sira and the teachings are better.

It was removed from the Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is in all versions of the Bible. That's where you mixed me up.

Ecclesiastes was written somewhere between 450 and 180 BCE by many authors one possibly named Solomon. But not THE Solomon.

Right.  I got confused with you.  That’s right, there are two books that sound the same.  Though not knowing for a fact, I assumed that Ecclesiastes was edited by authors aside from Solomon, because of the ending.  Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.  This sounds like someone trying to get people to ascribe to the writings of Moses rather than the true God, whomever that may be.

This is just my opinion, but the God that Moses describes cannot be the real God, since it sounds more like a devil than a God, but for many people, I think it’s just easier to believe the Bible and what they teach in church, rather than trying to find God for yourself.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Oh, Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) are 2 separate books. 

Ben Sira was the wisdom teachings of Jesus Ben Sira and the teachings are better.

It was removed from the Protestant Bible. Ecclesiastes is in all versions of the Bible. That's where you mixed me up.

Ecclesiastes was written somewhere between 450 and 180 BCE by many authors one possibly named Solomon. But not THE Solomon.

Just to let you know, I have the Catholic Bible, yes the big family choke a mule Bible signed by my ancestors and it belonged to my Grandmother.  I also have the Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden in hard copy, as well as the encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Archer, I believe….should you or anyone ever need a reference from those sources….hit me up.  Happy to oblige.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Right.  I got confused with you.  That’s right, there are two books that sound the same.  Though not knowing for a fact, I assumed that Ecclesiastes was edited by authors aside from Solomon, because of the ending.  Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.  This sounds like someone trying to get people to ascribe to the writings of Moses rather than the true God, whomever that may be.

This is just my opinion, but the God that Moses describes cannot be the real God, since it sounds more like a devil than a God, but for many people, I think it’s just easier to believe the Bible and what they teach in church, rather than trying to find God for yourself.

Ecclesiastes has too many Greek loan words and Aramaic influences to be composed anywhere near Solomon's time and the historical Solomon was just a petty warlord who ruled one city and controlled some copper pits so we don't know how wise or literate he was. 

[Guyver]

I also have several guides to prophecy, fitting for this thread, one by Stephen Miller as well as many others, and I just may offer up some of those prophecies for discussion since the OP can’t seem to do it. FYI.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Just to let you know, I have the Catholic Bible, yes the big family choke a mule Bible signed by my ancestors and it belonged to my Grandmother.  I also have the Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden in hard copy, as well as the encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Archer, I believe….should you or anyone ever need a reference from those sources….hit me up.  Happy to oblige.

I have the Nag-Hammadi and the Jerusalem Bible with the Strong's  Koine Concordance. That Bible has the Catholic/ Angelican books.

[+Desertrat56]

21 hours ago, Guyver said:

Interesting.  How did you come to know this?

Reading history books.

[Piney]

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Reading history books.

But everything was because of Helen, Constantine's mother who was a devote flake on a Evangelical level and her personal liar, Eusebius of Ceasaria who made up Constantine's fake conversion story.

He was a mommy's boy and wanted to keep her happy.

Constantine was a devote follower of Sol Invictus (El Agabal). He wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed and it was by a Arian priest. Not a Catholic one. 

[Guyver]

12 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Reading history books.

I’ve read history books.  They don’t read like what you said.

[+Desertrat56]

18 hours ago, Piney said:

But everything was because of Helen, Constantine's mother who was a devote flake on a Evangelical level and her personal liar, Eusebius of Ceasaria who made up Constantine's fake conversion story.

He was a mommy's boy and wanted to keep her happy.

Constantine was a devote follower of Sol Invictus (El Agabal). He wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed and it was by a Arian priest. Not a Catholic one. 

I didn't say Constantine believed the religion he had his underlings create, I just said he created it as a way to continue expansion of the empire.   It wasn't required that romans follow that religion until later.   But you have to admit it was a smart move invading the british isles and convincing the kings to force their people to convert (whether they did personally or not).    Maybe that is why Mithras is part of the Mormon religion somehow.   🤣   It is a bit mish mash mess of a religion and that is why it keep splitting like cells, mutating over and over and over.   I tried to count how many different denominations of the christian religion there are in the U.S. and gave up after a while,  but I have witnessed that splitting over some idiotic disagreement on interpretation, or sometimes it's about money.

Edited August 18 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

I’ve read history books.  They don’t read like what you said.

It's because you are reading the main stream history books, go find the older books in the back of the library.

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I didn't say Constantine believed the religion he had his underlings create, I just said he created it as a way to continue expansion of the empire.   It wasn't required that romans follow that religion until later.   But you have to admit it was a smart move invading the british isles and convincing the kings to force their people to convert (whether they did personally or not).    Maybe that is why Mithras is part of the Mormon religion somehow.   🤣   It is a bit mish mash mess of a religion and that is why it keep splitting like cells, mutating over and over and over.   I tried to count how many different denominations of the christian religion there are in the U.S. and gave up after a while,  but I have witnessed that splitting over some idiotic disagreement on interpretation, or sometimes it's about money.

The British Isles was invaded long before Rome was Christian and the Romans adopted many of their indigenous gods and forced no one to convert. Just destroyed the Druids as rabble rousers.

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's because you are reading the main stream history books, go find the older books in the back of the library.

Outdated ones? 

[+Desertrat56]

21 hours ago, Piney said:

The British Isles was invaded long before Rome was Christian and the Romans adopted many of their indigenous gods and forced no one to convert. Just destroyed the Druids as rabble rousers.

Outdated ones? 

Yes, the british isles were invaded over and over by all kinds of people, but after the romans started spreading their "church" doctrine and let the pope be the emperor the british king (who was helped by the romans to take over the whole kingdom)  decided it was a good way to control people and they were ruled by the vatican until Henry IIIV, so what does what the romans did before that have to do with what I said?   

And maybe reading histories written at different times from different countries/perspectives is a good way to study history and figure out what really happened, knowing who wrote the history books and what their agenda was is necessary in order to understand it.  The natives have a different version of history than the spainiard colonists who have a different version of the same history than the english colonists.   Then there are the different histories of what happened in the 1900's, 1920's, 1930's (the germans, british and french have different history of WW2 than we do, the U.S. claims to be the heros in that one, but they weren't the heros everywhere, and only joined because of getting bombed by Japan, otherwise it would have only been volunteers joining other armies from the U.S. not even noticed).    

Edited August 19 by Desertrat56

[Piney]

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, the british isles were invaded over and over by all kinds of people, but after the romans started spreading their "church" doctrine and let the pope be the emperor the british king (who was helped by the romans to take over the whole kingdom)  decided it was a good way to control people and they were ruled by the vatican until Henry IIIV, so what does what the romans did before that have to do with what I said?   

 

Britain peacefully converted around the time the Romans left via wandering missionaries. Then the Anglish and Saxons invaded and brought paganism.

Meanwhile Britain was a was just a group of petty kingdoms because the Romans left the petty king infrastructure which lasted until Ethelstan became sole king.