who took out parts of the bible!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter LIFE
- Start date
Quahom1 said:No Cap, if you read your history...they waited for those to come to them. The place was called Ireland, and the year was 600 AD. And they did come.
v/r
Q
I've read the history, the irish were there before 600 ad, though they were called gaels, they've been on that island since before the picts landed in britainia. I also know that when they couldn't be converted peacfully force was used........but this is getting way off topic and I'm not here to start some kind of crusade, forgive me for almost ranting there, I've got enough enemies I don't need more........*shuts up*
capthowdy said:
No sweat.
The Celts (or Irish Gaelics) arrived circa 400-350 BC. After the fall of Rome, and St. Patrick's time on Ireland (he was a British born citizen of Rome), circa 562 AD, the Irish took to heart (among other things), the love of writing. They not only wrote, they transcribed from one language to many others, all they could find in print. They also had an interesting sense of wit, in that they would pen annecdotes in the margines of the pages they wrote.
More important is the fact that for 150 or so years, their works literally kept the world from sociologically going back to the stone age. And they became monks, Abbots and "Abbesses" (female priests of the catholic order). Besides being teachers to all who would come to the island (most children of European feudal lords were sent there for education), they also preached the Christian doctrine (ala Irish style), traveling throughout Europe to do so.
When the Vatican sent an emmisary troop to Ireland to commend them for their good works for the church, the Bishops of Rome were shocked to find that a great many of the priests of Ireland were women. They promptly ordered their "guard" to dispatch these heathen heretics. However much to their shock and dismay, the guards and Bishops found their own throats threatened by the business end of double edged swords, held by the very women they were about to teach a lesson to.
(Irish monks were also warriors of significant stature). The Abbesses got to remain ordained priests, needless to say, and the scribes continued to translate everything they could get their hands on...including the Bible. They left out no part, however there was no shortage of comments in the margines about things they found non logical, ludicrious, or hypocritical.
Ireland was never converted forcefully, thanks to Patricus (St. Patrick). See the Irish warriors were not afraid of dying, before Patrick, they were afraid of living. When Patrick came along (the second time), they were ready and ripe for the message of living hope. They ate the word up and were hungry for more.
Some argue that Christianity is what killed the blood lust in the Irish soul, and hence what caused them to become subjugated by the Norsemen after 750 AD.
For more on the subject, I suggest "How the Irish saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. Here is a link for further commentary: http://www.allaboutirish.com/library/bookrev/rev-saved.shtm
Once you pick up the book, it is hard to put down.
I can tell you, you'll find that the Irish never removed a period from any books they transcribed, especially not the Bible. Though they had no problems making fun of parts of it...
v/r
Q
capthowdy said:right on, I know a little about the gaels, but ask me about the picts and I'll never shut up
btw I was I was baptized and had my first comunion in the catholic church
Well now, all ye gotta do is have yer confirmation, and yer all set!
Seriously, do as you are called to. As for me and mine, this is how we will follow The Lord...
v/r
Q
p.s. I'd like to know about the "Picts". I thought all were one and the same, but I digress...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Q!
Will wonders never cease? So there is a bit of historian in you! Tell me, are you familiar at all with the house of Tara? Or the Stone of Scone?
BTW, Kindest Regards to Capthowdy as well, and welcome to CR!
I too, would be interested to hear what you have to say about the Picts.
Will wonders never cease? So there is a bit of historian in you! Tell me, are you familiar at all with the house of Tara? Or the Stone of Scone?
BTW, Kindest Regards to Capthowdy as well, and welcome to CR!
I too, would be interested to hear what you have to say about the Picts.
Let's see, when Patricus lit the "fire", he was confronted by the King Loegaire, and the druids of Tara. The fire he lit (that lit the King's fuse), was the fire of Paschal. Tara was the heart of "pagan" Ireland, as I recall. Tara and the king and his "men" also protected society from the "otherworld", and did not quite know what to make of Patricus (he frightened them, despite his gentle demeanor). For he would also refuse to back down to anyone...and held about him a glow as if from the gods themselves.
The Stone of Scone, also known as "Jacob's pillar". It is supposedly gone with the decendants of Jacob, and resided within the House of Tara (eventually). The "stone" was part of the coronation of the various "kings of Ireland" from the 600s BC, until 500 AD, and was also called the "Stone of Destiny". Originally it was the stone that Jacob rested his head on. Problem with this story is that the Gaels do not appear in Ireland until 400 BC, which leaves about 200 years in question.
v/r
Q
The Stone of Scone, also known as "Jacob's pillar". It is supposedly gone with the decendants of Jacob, and resided within the House of Tara (eventually). The "stone" was part of the coronation of the various "kings of Ireland" from the 600s BC, until 500 AD, and was also called the "Stone of Destiny". Originally it was the stone that Jacob rested his head on. Problem with this story is that the Gaels do not appear in Ireland until 400 BC, which leaves about 200 years in question.
v/r
Q
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Q!
OK. So if I am reading correctly (if not, please do correct me), you affiliate Jeremiah's escort with the Gaels? That is, the Gaels are the descendents of Judah?
BTW, my apologies if I seem to be contributing to derailing the thread.
OK. So if I am reading correctly (if not, please do correct me), you affiliate Jeremiah's escort with the Gaels? That is, the Gaels are the descendents of Judah?
BTW, my apologies if I seem to be contributing to derailing the thread.
juantoo3 said:
Some do make that claim Juan (to Gaels once belonging to one of the tribes of Israel. I do not know. What I do see is the timing being off, to a point where doubt comes in as to:
1. When the Gaels arrived in Ireland or
2. If the Gaels are related to any tribe of Israel.
What I do find puzzling is that they knew of the story of the stone, and considered it hallowed. Also, Gaelic phenomes have a peculiar echo of the semitic languages.
v/r
Q
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Cool! Anything to add about the Scotts?
Chalice
I am the Grail
Relax, there is nothing missing from the Bible. The dead sea scrolls proved that what we have in our current Bibles is word for word what we have in the earliest manuscripts available. These scrolls are in a museaum called the the Dome of the Scroll of the Book in Israel. The reasons that the Christian and Hebrew scriptures have not changed is because of the process in which the scribes wrote them. Scrolls in antiquity were written by hand, and if even ONE letter was messed up, the entire scroll was done away with. After a scroll was finished, a team of readers read it and compared each written letter to the original that the scroll was copied from. When a scroll had met with the end of it's usefull life, it was buried like a person. The Jews of antiquity made sure that great care was used in scribing newer versions of the scriptures, and that tradition carried on through Christianity.
New religions, like Mormonism "say" that things have been left out of Christian and Hebrew scriptures, but that is not accurate of the Bible, when one looks at the physical evidence and compares our current Bible to the scrolls and documents of antiquity. However, the Mormon scriptures, in only 100 years time, have had many changes, and likewise, you can compare a current book of mormon to one of 100 years ago, and see for yourself that entire scriptures have been removed. You can purchase an original Book of Mormon from the Strangites, a group of mormons in wisconson by typing their name in a search engine. There are some books mentioned in the Bible that do not exist today, and may never have been included in the religious collection of that people group. If you purchase Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and look up the word "books" you will find many "books" the Bible speaks of but does not have. In one Biblical story, the entire Old Testament was lost, and a new king decides to rebuild the dilapitated temple, finding the Scriptures in full hidden inside the Temple. This prince has them studied and brought back to life. What you need to do is ask your local librarian if she can help you research and find scholarly books on how the Bible, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were written and how they came down to us today. She may have to search through "books in print" and order, through inter-library loan, or even inter-state library loan, a scholarly book from a Seminary Library, but it will be worth it for you to read and learn it. You might also ask for a video on such a topic, I bet there is one.
New religions, like Mormonism "say" that things have been left out of Christian and Hebrew scriptures, but that is not accurate of the Bible, when one looks at the physical evidence and compares our current Bible to the scrolls and documents of antiquity. However, the Mormon scriptures, in only 100 years time, have had many changes, and likewise, you can compare a current book of mormon to one of 100 years ago, and see for yourself that entire scriptures have been removed. You can purchase an original Book of Mormon from the Strangites, a group of mormons in wisconson by typing their name in a search engine. There are some books mentioned in the Bible that do not exist today, and may never have been included in the religious collection of that people group. If you purchase Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and look up the word "books" you will find many "books" the Bible speaks of but does not have. In one Biblical story, the entire Old Testament was lost, and a new king decides to rebuild the dilapitated temple, finding the Scriptures in full hidden inside the Temple. This prince has them studied and brought back to life. What you need to do is ask your local librarian if she can help you research and find scholarly books on how the Bible, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were written and how they came down to us today. She may have to search through "books in print" and order, through inter-library loan, or even inter-state library loan, a scholarly book from a Seminary Library, but it will be worth it for you to read and learn it. You might also ask for a video on such a topic, I bet there is one.
There are 7 entire books missing from the OT bible, that were left out by Martin Luther, he also wanted to leave out Hebrews and Revelation, thankfully there are bibles that contain these 7 books, The Catholic Cannon still remains faithful to the septuigent, the OT cannon used by Christ and the Apostles.
The New Jeruselem Bible, is a complete Version
The New Jeruselem Bible, is a complete Version
if god revealed himself to man, we have to be able to know with assurance where that revelation can be found.
Since we are staking our salvation on the truth of gods word we need to know exactly and infallibly which books contain divine truth. Otherwise we might look to words of men for the words of god.
Hence we need a list of the inspired books of the bible “canon”
Catholic and protestant bibles have a different number of books in the OT
The Protestant is based on the Hebrew canon used by Hebrew Speaking Jews in Palestine, the Catholic is based on the Greek canon used by greek speaking jews throughout the mediterranian inc Palestine.
The City of Alexandria in Egypt had the largest library in the ancient world and from 250 – 125 BC the entire Hebrew bible was translated into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars, six from the 12 tribes. The Septuagint
The translation was very popular because Greek was the common language of the world by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying language (Most Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic) so it is not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Christ and the NT writers.
Most of the OT quotes in the NT refers to the Septuagint 340 compared to 33 from the Hebrew.
The Hebrew Canon was established in 100AD in reaction to the Christians using the Septuagint. The Jews Rejected 7 books found in the Septuagint. WISDOM, SIRACH, JUDITH, BARUCH, TOBIT and 1 AND 2 MACCABEES (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) on the grounds that they could not find and Hebrew versions of these books.
The Jewish council of Jamnia used 4 criteria to determine their canon
1. Writen in Hebrew
2. In conformity with the torah
3. Older than the time of ezra
4. Writen in Palestine
However research into the dead sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of the disputed books
The Christian church continued to use the Septuagint.
The late protestant evangelical scholar F.F Bruce confirms this:
“So Thoroughly, indeed did Christian appropriate the Septuagint that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it”
The Christian Church councils of Hippo, 393 AD and Carthage 397 AD Approved the Septuagint canon as the canon of the OT. For 1600 years the canon was a matter of uncontested faith. The 7 books are quoted by the early Christian Church fathers as Inspired or Scripture along with the other undisputed books.
1n 1529, Martin Luther Proposed the Hebrew Canon of 39 books as the OT Canon. He found justification because of the claims there were no Hebrew counter parts however the dead sea scrolls have put pay to this claim.
If your Bible includes the Seven books you follow Jesus and the early church. If your bible dosnt have the seven books, you follow the non Christian Jews and Martin Luther a man who wanted to throw out more books (JAMES, ESTHER, REVELATION) and who deliberately of his own accord added the word “alone” to sacred scripture in his german translation of Romans 3:28
“Since as we see it a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the lawtells him to do”
“Since as we see it a person is justified by faith alone and not by doing what the law tells him to do”
The NT was wrote about 50Ad and completed about 100AD a total of 27 books all of which both Catholics and protestants accept as canonical and inspired.
The question is who determind the NT canon of inspired books?
Various bishops developed lists of inspired books
Mielto, Bishop of Sardis 175AD
St Irenaeus, Bsihop of Lyons 185 AD
Eusebieus, Bishop of Caesarea 325AD
Pope Damasus 382AD wrote a decree listing the present OT & NT canon of 73 books
The Council of Hippo in 393 approved the present OT & NT
The Council of Carthage 397 approved the same OT & NT
This is the council which many protestants and evangelicals take as the authority
Pope St Innocent I in 405AD Approved and closed the canon of the bible
The canon was officially determined in the 4th centuary by Catholic Councils and Popes.
For the next 1100 years the canon was not disputed until the reformation.
Historically the RCC used her authority and determined which books belonged to the bible and assure us that everything in the bible is inspired. Apart from the RCC we simply have no way of knowing the truth.
Martin Luther himself admits:
“we are oblidged to yield amany things to the Papists(Catholics) – that they possess the word of god which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing about it at all”
Luther is admitting that chrsitians qwe their bible to efforts of the Catholic Church.
Luthers statement supports our argument
Without the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church we would not know which books of the bible are inspired
As Saint Augustine says:
“I would put no faith in the gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so”
Historically the bible is a Catholic book. The NT was written copied and collected bt Catholic Christians. The Canon was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church and it is because of the Catholic Church the protestants have a bible at all.
Logically The Church with the authority to determin the infallible word of god must have the infallible authority and guidance of the holy spirit. As I have shown there is absolutely no gaurentee that what is written in the bible is the genuine word of god. To trust the bible is to trust the authority of the Catholic Church which guarantees the bible. It is contradictory for protestants to accept the bible and reject the authority of the Catholic Church
Since we are staking our salvation on the truth of gods word we need to know exactly and infallibly which books contain divine truth. Otherwise we might look to words of men for the words of god.
Hence we need a list of the inspired books of the bible “canon”
Catholic and protestant bibles have a different number of books in the OT
The Protestant is based on the Hebrew canon used by Hebrew Speaking Jews in Palestine, the Catholic is based on the Greek canon used by greek speaking jews throughout the mediterranian inc Palestine.
The City of Alexandria in Egypt had the largest library in the ancient world and from 250 – 125 BC the entire Hebrew bible was translated into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars, six from the 12 tribes. The Septuagint
The translation was very popular because Greek was the common language of the world by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying language (Most Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic) so it is not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Christ and the NT writers.
Most of the OT quotes in the NT refers to the Septuagint 340 compared to 33 from the Hebrew.
The Hebrew Canon was established in 100AD in reaction to the Christians using the Septuagint. The Jews Rejected 7 books found in the Septuagint. WISDOM, SIRACH, JUDITH, BARUCH, TOBIT and 1 AND 2 MACCABEES (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) on the grounds that they could not find and Hebrew versions of these books.
The Jewish council of Jamnia used 4 criteria to determine their canon
1. Writen in Hebrew
2. In conformity with the torah
3. Older than the time of ezra
4. Writen in Palestine
However research into the dead sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of the disputed books
The Christian church continued to use the Septuagint.
The late protestant evangelical scholar F.F Bruce confirms this:
“So Thoroughly, indeed did Christian appropriate the Septuagint that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it”
The Christian Church councils of Hippo, 393 AD and Carthage 397 AD Approved the Septuagint canon as the canon of the OT. For 1600 years the canon was a matter of uncontested faith. The 7 books are quoted by the early Christian Church fathers as Inspired or Scripture along with the other undisputed books.
1n 1529, Martin Luther Proposed the Hebrew Canon of 39 books as the OT Canon. He found justification because of the claims there were no Hebrew counter parts however the dead sea scrolls have put pay to this claim.
If your Bible includes the Seven books you follow Jesus and the early church. If your bible dosnt have the seven books, you follow the non Christian Jews and Martin Luther a man who wanted to throw out more books (JAMES, ESTHER, REVELATION) and who deliberately of his own accord added the word “alone” to sacred scripture in his german translation of Romans 3:28
“Since as we see it a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the lawtells him to do”
“Since as we see it a person is justified by faith alone and not by doing what the law tells him to do”
The NT was wrote about 50Ad and completed about 100AD a total of 27 books all of which both Catholics and protestants accept as canonical and inspired.
The question is who determind the NT canon of inspired books?
Various bishops developed lists of inspired books
Mielto, Bishop of Sardis 175AD
St Irenaeus, Bsihop of Lyons 185 AD
Eusebieus, Bishop of Caesarea 325AD
Pope Damasus 382AD wrote a decree listing the present OT & NT canon of 73 books
The Council of Hippo in 393 approved the present OT & NT
The Council of Carthage 397 approved the same OT & NT
This is the council which many protestants and evangelicals take as the authority
Pope St Innocent I in 405AD Approved and closed the canon of the bible
The canon was officially determined in the 4th centuary by Catholic Councils and Popes.
For the next 1100 years the canon was not disputed until the reformation.
Historically the RCC used her authority and determined which books belonged to the bible and assure us that everything in the bible is inspired. Apart from the RCC we simply have no way of knowing the truth.
Martin Luther himself admits:
“we are oblidged to yield amany things to the Papists(Catholics) – that they possess the word of god which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing about it at all”
Luther is admitting that chrsitians qwe their bible to efforts of the Catholic Church.
Luthers statement supports our argument
Without the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church we would not know which books of the bible are inspired
As Saint Augustine says:
“I would put no faith in the gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so”
Historically the bible is a Catholic book. The NT was written copied and collected bt Catholic Christians. The Canon was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church and it is because of the Catholic Church the protestants have a bible at all.
Logically The Church with the authority to determin the infallible word of god must have the infallible authority and guidance of the holy spirit. As I have shown there is absolutely no gaurentee that what is written in the bible is the genuine word of god. To trust the bible is to trust the authority of the Catholic Church which guarantees the bible. It is contradictory for protestants to accept the bible and reject the authority of the Catholic Church
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
as far as lost tribes go and whether the gaels, or the ethiopans, or the native americans, or the japanese, or whoever, are lost tribes of israel, i can recommend no better resource than the following superb book by the respected historian tudor parfitt. i am not aware of any reputable source that gives credence to the idea that lost tribes are to be found in ireland.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...2/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-2545906-6466510
as far as the sefer yashar, or the "account of the wars of G!D" are concerned, there are some authorities who say that the sefer yashar is another name for the book of genesis (it being translated as the "book of the righteous") and some who say it's a lost text. likewise, the "wars of G!D" is also probably a lost text. remember, we lost quite a few ancient texts in the biblical period due to our general idolatry and wickedness - if you look in 1 kings chapter 22, you'll find the story of how we even lost the Torah itself once. i think the general consensus is that a) fortunately we didn't lose anything too important permanently and b) nobody has so far turned up any evidence that any recently discovered "lost books" are anything but hoaxes. of course, there are many bible scholars out there who want to make their reputation by making an amazing discovery, so don't be surprised if you find many extravagant claims out there.
b'shalom
bananabrain
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...2/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-2545906-6466510
as far as the sefer yashar, or the "account of the wars of G!D" are concerned, there are some authorities who say that the sefer yashar is another name for the book of genesis (it being translated as the "book of the righteous") and some who say it's a lost text. likewise, the "wars of G!D" is also probably a lost text. remember, we lost quite a few ancient texts in the biblical period due to our general idolatry and wickedness - if you look in 1 kings chapter 22, you'll find the story of how we even lost the Torah itself once. i think the general consensus is that a) fortunately we didn't lose anything too important permanently and b) nobody has so far turned up any evidence that any recently discovered "lost books" are anything but hoaxes. of course, there are many bible scholars out there who want to make their reputation by making an amazing discovery, so don't be surprised if you find many extravagant claims out there.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananabrain said:
Hi BB and welcome back!
I for one do not have a mind one way or the other about the lost tribes and where they were scattered to. I just found irony in the lore of the land claiming to own something that was allegedly part of Old testement stories, and the timing of Irish legends in conjunction with the timing of certain events as noted in the Old testement, being very close, and rather similar.
v/r
Q