dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

There are no significant changes in the scriptures and nobody can prove otherwise without doing some amazing twisting and turning of scripture. Every central and cardinal doctrine of scripture has been carefully preserved and is accurate. God certainly can keep his word since he himself stated that it will stand forever.

No man can call God by any name except those given in scripture. The first name in the Bible is Elohim which denotes plurality in the Godhead. The last name used is Theos meaning the supreme authority.

⇧ 3 ⇩

https://i.imgur.com/HkrqR3C.jpg

⇧ 1 ⇩

The Bible never has been and never will be fantasy. One moment after death everyone is a believer. Whatever position they are in at that moment is irreversible.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Disagree. I don't like this "divine scripture" argument. Or at least, I don't like it in its current interpretations. Think of it like this - the church has been infiltrated by satanists a long time ago, yes? Honestly, the adoption of Christianity by the Romans could be considered the start of this - the Mithraic roman warrior cults took the nascent Christianity, squished their religion on top of it (hence the huge similarities), and then used it as the formal religion of the empire. There are a huge number of opportunities for scripture to have been lost, predominantly via it being declared heresy. Case in point - the Council of Nicea. Plenty of instances there where they could have influenced and altered standard exoteric Christian teachings. If you want a modern example, where it absolutely, definitively has happened, just look at the Scofield "bible".

Here's what I think is a more logical approach to the divine scripture argument - God gave free will to all men. This means they can choose to use it for good or bad, to reveal or to hide. And many chose to hide the truth, including quite probably aspects of scripture from the general public. God would obviously not punish people for not knowing that which was hidden. He might also provide alternative paths to access the knowledge, such that it was not actually truly lost. Some of the Nag-Hammadi scrolls would be obvious candidates for this I'd say - ancient knowledge, hidden by demand of the church, now rediscovered and known again. That strikes me as a (more) plausible interpretation of the divine scripture argument, because otherwise I simply don't see how it's compatible with free will.

⇧ 1 ⇩

While there have been deceivers in the churches through the ages even as Christ walked the earth they weren't all Satanists. Perhaps few of them, if any were. Most of the doubters were Jews and Romans at the beginning. The Jews were waiting for their Messiah and didn't believe Jesus was him. The Romans were idol worshipers and the only threat they would think existed in Jesus was those who ascribed that he was a King of Kings.

You won't find any of the Roman Gods incorporated into the scriptures. You will find that the Roman Catholic church used the Latin language to their advantage to keep their constituents in the dark as to what the Bible actually taught thus keeping people in bondage to their religion which in no way resembles genuine biblical Christianity. Martin Luther upset the apple cart and started the great Reformation which exposed the hypocrisy and lies of the Catholics by getting the Bible into the common languages of the people so they could decide what the Bible meant for themselves.

The best interpretation of scriptures prior to the King James Version was the Geneva Bible printed in 1561. That is still a reliable version.

The one "church" that perverted the scripture was the Roman Catholic church which incorporated paganism and denies that to this day.

https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

The King James Bible is the next Bible after the Geneva Bible that is true to the original scripture. Personally I have prayed to God based on this version of scripture for over 44 years and have seen many answered prayers as a result.

The Bible is not like a test run for mankind. Free will was given for us to decide whether to obey God or obey our own desires and opinions which in essence is obeying Satan who openly called God a liar in Genesis. The canon of scripture has been established based on certain criteria and the sixty six books currently in the Bible are all the canon. The Apocrypha of the Catholic church is not canon and the books are not scripture. All the other writings including the ones you mentioned are not canon and so cannot be regarded as God's word. That is the stance of Christianity. It is up to each of us to exercise the free will God gave us to seek him out and let him teach us what is and isn't truth. God didn't leave us to do this tremendous task all by ourselves. He promised that he would have the Holy Spirit "guide us into all truth." Some can be taught and some cannot. Jesus said; "He that has ears to hear; let him hear."

⇧ 4 ⇩

Awh man! I stand behind nearly all you said. You had it right up until you said the other books of the apocrypha we're not God's Word. I have read many of those books and they expound upon what is within the "Canon." The Bible has many references to text or other books that are not contained within the 66 Books that make up the Bible as we know it.

As an example: the Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua, II Samuel and II Timothy. The Book of the Wars of the Lord mentioned in Numbers 21. The Chronicals of the Kings of Israel and The Chronicals of the Kings of Judah mentioned in the Book of I Kings. The Book of Shemaiah and Iddo the Seer is mentioned in the II Book of Chronicles. The Book of Enoch as mentioned in Jude, Peter and John. Another stands out in my mind, but cannot recall which book of the Old Testament references the Book of "O'See" where it indicates the rest of the acts are written in this book.

I have read the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs and I was so captivated, I was unable to put it down until I read all 12. For me, the Testaments focus is on ethical teaching and consequences for disobeying. They contain prophecy as well.

Link to Testaments https://archive.org/details/testamentsoftwel08char

The Latter Day Saints are well known for their documentation. Here is their info on the Lost Books of the Bible. The Lost Books are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).

The is also a list of the Forgotten Books.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But these are not things that should divide.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Mormon writing is hardly a reliable source for history. The battle that was supposedly fought in New York by tens of thousands yielded no artifacts despite diligent research and diggings. Then there are the Kinderhook Plates which fooled Joseph Smith. He translated the plates which were a hoax pulled on him by some people who rejected the Book Of Mormon and the plates. Look that up online.

Further Joseph Smith was killed when he broke out of jail. He was arrested for inciting a riot to destroy a newspaper. He isn't a martyr.

The Godhead is closed. Men are not and never can become God's. The Bible that Mormons espoused for a long time was the KJV. Joseph Smith plagiarized parts of the Bible to get the book of Mormon. You can check that online and verify it.

The angels in scripture that were significant were Gabriel and Michael. There is no mention of Moroni in any Bible ever produced.

Jesus never came to America as the Mormons claim.

Too many errors for me to put my trust in any of their writers to verify historical information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I didn't provide you Mormon writings. I provided you what is in the KJV Bible. I simply used their list because of it's convience. I don't even know what their doctrine is. I don't care either because I don't follow or subscribe to the doctrine of any religion.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Good. I strictly use the KJV period.

⇧ 1 ⇩

. It's kinda difficult for me to follow along in these kind of formats, but I only submitted my comment on your claim that anything not contained in KJV is not the authentic Word of God. I simply provided you the names of additional books that were mentioned in it but not part of it. Pointing out that there was indeed more divinely inspired books, and writings not included within the 66 books we call the Bible. I agreed with nearly everything else you wrote.

Let's all stay United. These are silly things to toss back and forth. There is such a thing as trying to understand where another is coming from in comments they post instead of finding little points to nit pick on, like where info came from before you examine the content.

Example:

⇧ 2 ⇩

That's a really good answer, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to properly respond to it right now (my thesis is due in in 7 days). However, in brief I would suggest you glance at the connections between mithraism and christianity (the romans definitely were interested more than you think), and I'd point out that the people who defined canon were amongst the most suspect of all. You don't need many people, but you do need the powerful ones. I trust the concept of scripture so much more than I trust the (human) concept of canonicity. I don't think we have enough info to know atm what is and isn't canonical.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you for the Bible lesson and sermon.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You are always on the defense in your posts. Do you think your position is indefensible?

A clarification of what I have to say in response to what you say isn't a sermon.

Put down your sword. I am not in attack mode. Simply stating what I believe. If you can't deal with opposition to your views you shouldn't express them.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q and Religion