"WE are wrong when we say that the Christian doctrine is concerned only with the salvation of the individual, and has nothing to do with questions of State. Such an assertion is simply a bold affirmation of an untruth."
Leo Tolstoy, My Religion, Chapter III
We are in a spiritual and a physical war that will determine which world view, which belief system will dominate mankind over the next millennium. The pre-trib rapture doctrine has put the church militant to sleep and will enslave our grandchildren and great grandchildren and their descendants to the slavery of Islam for centuries, or to an intolerant, atheist secular culture that will be the rival of Stalin's Soviet purges. Christians must wake up and rise up to defend their God given rights. If we do not respond to this call we will lose them. Freedom must be fought for at times, and defended from the dark forces of tyranny. This is such a time.
"Bloodiest in the history of World"
as Muslims slaughter THOUSANDS in ‘pure GENOCIDE’
for Passing Out Jesus Saves Pamphlets
at Gay Pride Parade
Help These Beautiful Creatures
Imperialism in India
the World and a Warning to Us Today
Hulagu Did Not Like Islam
Church of the East, From A.D.635 to A.D. 1400
The Variable Tit, And Other Nonsense
millions of years old, and that it was
formed suddenly by tectonic uplift and
a catastrophic flood.
Support The Theory of Evolution
Exposing the FLUFF of Evolution
Behind the Scopes "Monkey Trial"
Here is one example.
There has been some controversy over
its authenticity, I believe the evidence for
its authenticity is overwhelming
To view this text properly set your
screen resolution at 110% or 125%
and for the people?
Miracles do happen.
The Hatred and Violence of the Democrats
Barack Obama, John Brennan and
The Attempted Betrayal of America
And the Deep State Intelligence Network
Consisting of a comprehensive description of nearly all herbs with their medicinal properties and directions for compounding the medicines extracted from them by Culpeper, Nicholas, 1616-1654
-A Review of "Evolution:The Remarkable History of
a Scientific Theory"
Mark Isaak and the Bombardier Beetle:
Isaak's marvelous 15 Step Demonstration of
The Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle is
By Far and Away the Very Best Evidence
You will ever Find For Proof of Darwin's
Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
I highly recommend this to any hard-boiled
Skeptics of his theory.
(For a creationist viewpoint of the
Bombardier Beetle, click here , then after
reading both sides, creationist and evolutionist,
ask yourself honestly, which one really makes
more sense and is really more scientific?)
Produced the First Living Cell?
Part II Could Evolution Ever Have
Produced the First Living Cell?
Part II Could Evolution Ever Have
Produced the First Living Cell?
in the Whole World
the University of California Berkeley
a pork chop, cover it with mud, and
you'll still have some of it left after
65 million years.
did not live millions of years ago
We knew him well
Brutal "law" of survival of the fittest God's love triumphs
Translated from the Ancient Syriac
Text by James Murdock, A.D. 1851
The Ancient Peshitta Bible and the translations directly from it are the only versions (sorry KJV only people, but no, your Bible is not inerrant) that have Matthew 27:9-10 correct. All other English versions, including the versions translated from the Latin in the Catholic Church into English, are based on a corrupt Greek text. Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic/Syriac tongue for a Hebrew readership. Whoever that unknown scribe was who translated the original text into Greek made an error. This error was copied down and recopied and made it's way into virtually every single Greek text in existence over the entire ancient world, as well as into the later translations into Latin. The translation from the original Aramaic reads (Lamsa translation):
"Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, namely "I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel, and I gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
The Greek text and every single other translation that comes from it (this covers virtually every other version of the Bible in existence except the Peshitta) reads
"Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
The problem with this is that this prophecy did not come from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, it came from the book of the prophet Zechariah, 11:12-13.
The scribe who translated the original gospel of Matthew into Greek must have added the name of Jeremiah to the original text, perhaps being a Greek disciple unfamiliar with the original Hebrew Old Testament reference, perhaps being careless or tired, whatever the cause was, and this error was then compounded in every single other copy made in Greek, and thus made its way down to us in the present day.
There are three other errors in the Bible. Two of these errors are in the King James Version and some other versions of the Bible, but are not found in all other versions, thus they are not universal errors.
The fourth one is found in virtually every translation of the Bible that exists, thus this would be classified as a universal error.
The second error is found in Proverbs chapter five. This is a chapter warning against the perils of adultery and unchastity, and encouraging purity and faithfulness to one wife. The New King James, New American Standard, NIV and other modern translations correctly translate this chapter. The King James Version does not.
I will use the New King James version to show the correct translation of Proverbs 5:16, and include the previous verse and the two succeding verses to demonstrate how this translation is entirely in context with the flow and meaning of the chapter. The NASB and NIV translate it virtually the same.
"15: Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well. 16: Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17: Let them be only your own, And not for strangers with you. 18: Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth."
Here verse sixteen is translated correctly as a rhetorical question, and is entirely in context with the rest of the chapter: "Should your fountains be dispersed abroad . . .?" and the response is obviously no, however the King James Version translates verse sixteen as a declarative statement, not as a rhetorical question by using the word "Let" instead of "Should" at the beginning of the verse. This would make it a prescription for promiscuity and profligacy, not chastity: "Let your fountains be dispersed abroad . . .".
This cannot be the correct meaning of the verse, and the newer translations have the translation correct.
The second error in the King James Version (KJV), the New King James version (NKJV) and some other versions is in 2 Samuel 15:7 , but this is not a universal error.
After Absalom killed his brother Amnon and was plotting against his father David, it states in these versions that he dwelt in his house for forty years before the open rebellion: "Now it came to pass after forty years." This is not possible, as this would take up the entirety of David's remaining reign, and in fact the remainder of his life, and leave no room for the rest of the recorded events in his life after Absalom was slain.
The Syriac Peshitta version, along with some modern versions such as the NIV translate this verse correctly as being only four years, relying on different manuscripts i.e. the Syriac/Aramaic for the Peshitta, and variations in the Septuagint for the NIV.
By the way, I am not a fan of the NIV, but in this instance it is more accurate than the King James.
The third error is a universal error, in other words it seems to be in every version of the Bible that I have looked into.
In 2 Kings 13:1 it states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign in the 40th year of Joash's reign. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz became king over Israel in the 37th year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter
There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible down through the ages with no error in any word or letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers, but I do believe in the Bible's infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate, despite some small errors by men here and there that has no direct bearing on the message that God gave to mankind; none of the essential doctrines of the faith are in the slightest way affected by these small "glitches" and I believe that when God was speaking directly in the Bible, such as when He addressed Moses or spoke through a prophet, that His words were accurately preserved and inerrant.
Additionally, not all of the versions of the Bible that we have today agree with each other. So, which version is inerrant? The ESV, ERV, NIV and many others omit Matthew 17:21 "However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting", whereas the KJV, NKJV, the Douay Rheims and many others include it. In fact, the ESV removes 90% of all references to fasting in the gospels and in the book of Acts.
The ESV, ERV, NIV and many others omit John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one," wheras the KJV, NKJV, Douay Rheims and many others contain it. Thus we have many Bibles today that don't perfectly agree with one another.
Again, which version do you hold to be inerrant?
Why am I making such a big deal about this? I have read too many stories over the internet of people, professed Christians many of whom were in the ministry, who when their favorite doctrine of inerrancy was exploded they lost it, their faith utterly collapsed, and then it was, "Well God couldn't have written any of this; it was all the work of man; they were all forgeries, etc. etc." No, no, and no. Scripture was God breathed, there was inspiration from the Holy Ghost, all scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," despite some human errors along the way.
There is something else and there was something else that we had too, even before the Bible was collated. We had a community, an assembly of believers united in faith and practice, who adhered to certain doctrines that defined them as the church. Two of these practices, from the earliest times became known as Sacraments; these were the Sacraments of Baptism and the Sacrament of Communion, partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord. We also had early church councils and statements regarding the virgin birth of Christ, his sinless life, death burial and resurrection, and in the Triune nature of the Godhead. These beliefs were articulated as the Nicene and Apostles' Creed, and other later creeds. Those who subscribed to these creeds, and who partook of the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion in good faith, believing that the Holy Supper was indeed our Lord's body, and repented of their sins and lived a life in accordance with the scriptures were admitted into the church. Essentially I am making an argument for scripture and tradition. We need both. We have had this community for nearly 2,000 years. So, these beliefs and practices were foundational, and those who did not adhere to these beliefs, or added to these beliefs, were expelled from the community of believers. There is nothing here regarding the belief in the inerrancy of every single word or letter in Paul's epistles as necessary to be among the community of the saints. They believed in our Lord, they amended their lives, they partook of Communion and were Christians. It was very simply. Believe, Recieve, Obey. Inerrancy has been tacked on by zealous scholars who have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel, missing the simple truth of the Gospel, believe in Jesus, love God and love your fellow man. That's it.
So to those critics of the Bible, the word of God, this is a sufficient explanation to the skeptics who seek to throw doubt on the divine inspiration of the original manuscript. There was no mistake, but there was human error in handling the later copies of God's word. These are minor details; we have a sufficient amount of scriptural and historical evidence for the verification of the life of the Messiah, the King of Israel, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but infidels have siezed on these and other picayune items to attack the word of God and try to sway those who are called, both Jews and Gentiles, away from a saving faith in the testimony of the Law, the prophets and the apostles concerning the Son of God, who "loved us and gave Himself for us".