Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

-

greyseal wrote ....what a camel has to do with elohim

-

According to the righteousness of the Scribes who made copies of the scriptures and translated the Ancient Testament to you,

there is nothing more righteous than using the same Generic term 'god' to refer to the images and at the same time to refer to the Eternal.

Who has first sanctified the Generic term god?

what causes the Generic term elohim--god(s) to be the name of a Camel being swallowed by the Scribes of Yudaism, and of religion and doctrines of faiths is the fact that ELYON did not sanctify the generic term god and elohim (gods).

אל EL abbreviation of ELYON

Jehaveh'óshua––I AM IS THE SALVATION said: The Scribes took the keys of the door of Scripture and hid them; nor did they enter, and those who desired to enter, they permitted them not. You, however, be precautious with serpents and innocent with doves! –– (The Tomah Gospel Paraphrased).

To be precautious with serpents or being prudent as with serpents is not acting hastely but seeing first that the scripture they translate have been substituting EL אל (abbreviation of ELYON––which means THE ONE THAT DECLARES) with both generic terms god and elohim––a common generic designation for deities in the Middle east.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

wrote, ...there are contradictions between what Catholicism teaches and what the Bible states?

-

A mastercopy of scripture made by the Catholicist doctrine of crucifixion teaches that the chief priests would have said: 'we want him to be crucified'

However, the crucifixion doctrine falls in contradiction in the sequence of this passage:

American Standard Version
Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.

Bible in Basic English
Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves and put him on the cross: I see no crime in him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him.

-

In the moment Pilate made the proposal of allowing the chief priests to execute a sentence to death themselves, with the condition that they should utilize the crucifixion method, the high priest did not show interest.

To the contrary, their demand was for the system of the Hebrews:

We have a Law, and he shall be suspended according to our Law....

When Pilate heard this statement, he feared even more. And determining that it had to be as they demanded, he did not impose nor allow condemnation by the laws of the Romans
or of the †Roman cross.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

-

wrote: are you saying that different versions of the Bible contradict what original manuscripts state?

-

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A LAMB BEING REQUESTED TO PAY A PRICE FOR YOUR SINS
BUT A LAMB BEING A FREE OFFERING TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS.
ALSO IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A PRICE TO BE PAID NOR ANY PRICE IMPOSED BY THE LAW EITHER
BUT A LAMB OFFERED AS A FREE AND SPONTANEOUS OFFER:

In the words: 'THE LAMB THAT DIED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD', which translates: EVEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE: book of Genesis,

so the meaning: the same type of offering of the lamb that was offered even in the beginning of Genesis.

THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT

Power of remission does not depend on price being paid.
Scripture instructs that one has access to salvation by Jhvh’s graciousness, which means they are saved because of Jhvh’s Power of remission, through the Lamb, (that is through the Word of I AM that was made flesh, and by fidelity (that is by remaining in total fidelity to Jhvh).

Same scripture attests that the Power of remission of sins does not depend on price being paid, Jhvh said: But that you may know that the First-fruit of Jhvh abiding within the man has power to remove the sins -- then He said to the paralytic, ‘Arise, take up your pallet and go to your house.’

The Lamb as revealed in the book Revelations

Book of Revelations clears up that this is not a type of lamb for a price being paid.
The offering of the lamb of Jhvh a freely and unexpectedly one as the spontaneous offering in the beginning of Genesis
Apocalipse reveals that it was an unexpected offering that has nothing to do with obligation nor imposition of law.
Lamb called Jehaveh'óshua (I AM IS THE SALVATION) was sent to be given as a free offereing: unexpectedly (spontaneously) as in the beginning of the book (Genesis).

For both the book of Hebrews and the book Apocalipse make a clear distinction between a free and unexpected offering and a price being paid:

I - the same type of offering of the lamb that was offered even in the beginning of Genesis.

Vatican's mastercopy: ...beginning of the world

II – Revelation says: ‘With your blood --a blood that was freely offered-- the souls were bought,

III - Thus, one is bought without price: by a free and unexpected offering.

A FREE OFFERING IS NOT ABOUT A PRICE BEING PAID

Just as the type of offering of the lamb that Abel offered in the beginning of Genesis is different from a price being paid,
even so the lamb of Yhvh has nothing to do with the lambs that died through the priesthood of the sons Levi
which were according to obligations and ordinances that had been left to the sons of Aaran;

For in the priesthood of Aaran the lambs were brought to the priest as a price paid for sins.
Whenever the doctrines of faiths and religion use the term 'price being paid'
they are implying that the lamb would have died according to an obligation, operation of imposed law and priesthood of the Levites.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

JRTjr

Edited by JRTjr, : Meant to reply to CrazyDiamond7, not myself. ;-{

Dear Greyseal,

It is great to hear from you again.

I have to agree with you on your points in this posting.

Greyseal writes: the amount of literary heavy-lifting done by most believers seems to be minimal

Unfortunately I have found this to be true about people across the board, not just the “believers”

--

Greyseal writes: to pretend that translations change nothing than the language is a big mistake, and I think to pretend that whilst scribes are really, really good at what they do, to pretend that they can't make mistakes or would not make changes for any reason is foolish.

This is also so true. A direct translation ‘word for word’ (per say) would not make much sense especially with two completely unique languages.

However, I believe there may be a variable you may be overlooking.

If God is the author of the Bible (as the Bible claims), then would you not have to take into account God’s ability to keep the errors and tendencies of scribes to ‘add’ or ‘change things’ to a minimum?

--

Greyseal writes: You still cannot use the bible to prove the bible

I can agree with this statement to a certain degree. There are many types or kinds of proofs in science.

For instance: Just because a book in the Old Testament names a city and then it is named again in the New Testament does not prove that that city actually existed. To prove the city actually existed you have to find references to that city in other ancient literature or find the remains of that city where the Bible claimed it would be. (I.E. as far as ‘accuracy’ and ‘inerrancy’ go your right that “You cannot use the bible to prove the bible”)

However, when working on understanding what a curtain passage is saying you do use different scriptures to prove (establish, demonstrate, verify, confirm) your hypotheses of what that scripture is saying. So, in that sense you do “use the bible to prove the bible”

I realize that your point was the first definition ‘you can’t use the Bible to prove that what the Bible says is ‘historically’ or ‘scientifically’ accurate you must have external evidences’ I just wanted to clarify your blanket statement.

I pray this does not offend you,
JRTjr

Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Thank you for your Time and effort in these matters. It is great to see people interested in deciphering what is true (Factual) and what is faults (in error).

You state:

Protestant bible translation has brought up many contradictions which proceeded from the spiritual ordinances that were doctrine of the Catholicism. The doctrine of the Catholicism inserted in the Scripture the belief that man can not have his hair grown long because he would be disgracing his head; a belief that has been proven false because it contradicts the scripture about the Nazarite vow. (Message #1 05-22-2009 4:42 PM)

I have a few Questions about this:

Where is it written that “man cannot have his hair grown long”?

Are you saying that this is written in the Bible? (If so, where? If not, where?)

--

You state that this belief: “has been proven false because it contradicts the scripture about the Nazarite vow. ”

O.K. What does Scripture say about “the Nazarite vow”? {As my Grandmother says “’ Chapter’ and ‘Verse’ please”} :-}

JRTjr

-

the Law about the vow of the Nazarite (Set Apart or Separated one), book of Numbers, establishes that the locks of one's hair ought to grow long:

he or she was to abstain from wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins. Next, the Nazirite was not to cut his hair for the length of the vow. Last, he was not to go near a dead body because that would make him unclean to the Spirit. Even if a member of his immediate family died, he was not to go near the corpse.

-

so the meaning: the Law about the vow of the Nazarite (Set Apart or Separated one), establishes that the locks of one's hair ought to grow long,

but the sample of texts that came from a mastercopy made up by the spiritual ordinance of Litanies and copied by the Roman catholicism says the opposite,

New International Version (©1984)

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to *[the] god with her head uncovered?
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to *[the] god with her head uncovered?
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

English Standard Version (©2001)

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to *[the] god with her head uncovered?
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

* Note: According to Scripture as originally written there was never a moment that the generic term god or elohim was sanctified by ELYON,
therefore, in the versions of scripture that came from a Catholicist mastercopy, the camel's name god or elohim appears as it was in the days of Mosheh: a common generic designation for deities in the Middle east.

-------

Paraphrased scripture reveals which contents have been omitted:

Vav -- Let every woman judge by herself if it is decent for her to recite or prophesy Yhvh's Word with her forehead uncovered.
Does not Torah instruct that when a foreigner woman was taken by force and had her head shaved, that was a sign that man had humilliated her by taking her to serve him as a wife?

Záyin -- But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her.
For her long hair is given to her for a veil.
And if anyone seems to be contencious [whether impeding or imposing the use of a forehead covering]
we [the Hebrews] do not have it [to be worn] for [a] custom [or segment of tradition],
Neither we [the Hebrews] nor the gatherings of people of the Most High.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

-

wrote, A direct translation ‘word for word’ (per say) would not make much sense especially with two completely unique languages.

-

In the verification by measurent, the proof of authenticity is not based on a word for word comparison.

Verification by measurement is about facts.

And the one that inquires for truth might ask this: What facts indeed occurred?

-

It is only by verifying the facts that one clears up which scripture is not just another version leading to the one Roman mistranslation and mastercopy called sacred vulgate and others.

And as all manuscripts and their copies were sealed within under lock and key,
also The Acts of Pilate was eclipsed, obscured by the spiritual ordinance of Litanies,
and the original scripture of Nicodemus speaking to Pilate about the Law of the Hebrews was substituted with the same passages of the crucifixion story cut and pasted from the sacred vulgate.

-

Second Reversed 4th Key – Acts of Pilate, The Scripture Paraphrased,

Then the governor commanded all the chief priests to go out from the Praetorium, and he called Jehaveh'óshua to him and saith unto him:

What shall I do with thee? Jehaveh'óshua saith unto Pilate: Do as it hath been given thee.

Pilate saith: How hath it been given?
Jehaveh'óshua saith: As it was written by Mosheh in the books of Law and of the prophets concerning the manner a lamb is offered to die.

-

Version belonging to fides quae creditur doctrine:

...What shall I do with thee?
Iesus saith unto Pilate: Do as it hath been given thee.
Pilate saith: How hath it been given?
Iesus saith: Moses and the prophets did foretell concerning my death...

-

quote:

---

A mastercopy of scripture made by the Catholicist doctrine of crucifixion teaches that the chief priests would have said: 'we want him to be crucified'

However, the crucifixion doctrine falls in contradiction in the sequence of this passage:

American Standard Version
Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.

Bible in Basic English
Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves and put him on the cross: I see no crime in him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him.

-

In the moment Pilate made the proposal of allowing the chief priests to execute a sentence to death themselves, with the condition that they should utilize the crucifixion method, the high priest did not show interest.

To the contrary, their demand was for the system of the Hebrews:

We have a Law, and he shall be suspended according to our Law....

When Pilate heard this statement, he feared even more. And determining that it had to be as they demanded, he did not impose nor allow condemnation by the laws of the Romans
or of the †Roman cross.

-

4th Key – The sign of the lamb [the palms of both hands gathered and pressed to one another] the maximum approach between both hands, being replaced by the precise opposite: the sign of the beast that is the maximum distance between both hands; the sign of the Roman cross. – What’s a fourth key – The term Fourth Synchronized key, in this case, is being used for a real evidence of the sign of the lamb.

A reversed 4th key is evidence that the sign of the lamb has been eclipsed and kept hidden by the presence of another mark: the Roman cross, that is the exact contrary of what the sign of the lamb is.

---

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Thank you for your response.

Again, you have given quotes, and given the versions that they are out of, but, you have failed to give the ‘Book’, ‘Chapter’, and ‘Verse’ of the Bible(s) you are quoting from.

However, putting that aside for now; your claim that these constitute a contradiction, I believe, is an over statement.

For it to be a ‘contradiction A’ you must have two things (in this case ‘statements’) that directly oppose each other.

In what way is the Nazarite requirement to humble himself before his God by not cutting his hair in contradiction with the statement that “14 Does not the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him, ” (1 Corinthians 11: 14 Amplified Bible [/url] -->Amplified Bible )

To me it seams to dove tail quit well. If a man is to humbleB (humiliate) himself before his God one way of doing so is to not cut his hair; is it not?

P.S. Please, give ‘Chapter’, and ‘Verse’ of the Bible you are referring to in the book of Numbers; and what English translation.

Thank you again for your Time,
JRTjr

------------------------------------------

The Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. writes: A. Con•tra•dic•tion –noun 1. The act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition. 2. Assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. 3. A statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous. 4. Direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency. 5. A contradictory act, fact, etc. Origin: 1350–1400; ME contradiccioun (< AF) < L contrādictiōn- (s. of contrādictiō). See contradict, -ion B. Hum•ble    /ˈhʌmbəl, ˈʌm-/ Show Spelled [huhm-buhl, uhm-] Show IPA adjective,-bler, -blest, verb,-bled, -bling. –adjective 1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful. 2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble. 3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home. 4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong. 5. low in height, level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy. –verb (used with object) 6. to lower in condition, importance, or dignity; abase. 7. to destroy the independence, power, or will of. 8. to make meek: to humble one's heart. Use humble in a Sentence See images of humble Search humble on the Web Origin: 1200–50; ME (h)umble < OF < L humilis lowly, insignificant, on the ground. See humus, -ile —Related forms hum•ble•ness, noun humbler, noun hum•bling•ly, adverb humbly, adverb o•ver•hum•ble, adjective o•ver•ble•ness, noun o•ver•b•ly, adverb quasi-humble, adjective qua•si-b•ly, adverb self-humbling, adjective un•hum•ble, adjective un•ble•ness, noun un•b•ly, adverb un•hum•bled, adjective —Synonyms 1. unpretending, unpretentious. 2. submissive, meek. 3. unassuming, plain, common, poor. 4. polite. 6. mortify, shame, abash. 7. subdue, crush, break. Humble, degrade, humiliate suggest lowering or causing to seem lower. To humble is to bring down the pride of another or to reduce him or her to a state of abasement: to humble an arrogant enemy. To degrade is to demote in rank or standing, or to reduce to a low level in dignity: to degrade an officer; to degrade oneself by lying. To humiliate is to make others feel or appear inadequate or unworthy, esp. in some public setting: to humiliate a sensitive person. —Antonyms 1, 2. proud. 3. noble, exalted. 4. rude, insolent. 6. elevate. 8. exalt.

-

When one comes to sell [publishing or quoting the Word of scripture],
or when one quotes the Words of life to buy the souls that are worth gold and precious stones,

then he or she has the option of not using the numbers that were placed in the bible; its sequences of verse numbers were made to belong to the spirit of the doctrine i.e. similar to leopard with dexter agility.

-

wrote, ....you have given quotes, and given the versions that they are out of, but, you have failed to give the ‘Book’, ‘Chapter’, and ‘Verse’ of the Bible(s) you are quoting from.

If one enters the quote "long hair is a dishonor" by google the result is a list of sites giving the Book and other references.

However, to quote the verse numbers placed in the bible is paying reverence to the alleged authority of a cardinal and an archbishop,

because there is no difference in that: When quoting the Words of truth, then to use the verse numbers (that they placed beside the eternal word) is calling them 'worthy of reverence in matters to the Spirit and is naming them as legitimate authority from above to rule over the Scriptures as the Scribes of the Catholicism did for over 1,500 years.

In 1560 the Scriptures were entirely divided into the verse numbering form, but the sequence placed before the eternal word by a Roman spiritual ordinance belongs to Vivi Sei.

quote:

---

It was quoted before in the subject 'Ascertaining on the existence of Vivi Sei', Thread 7204, forum 6, Faith and Belief,

There is a transcription in the pages of a book written on the outside and sealed within, which brings up where and what type of holy place the number that proceeded from the spiritual ministry of the beast is accessible to be counted. Also which mode of understanding and systematic decryption that holy place does require in order for the result 6,6,6 to be found, with consistency, in all terminations of sequence from the rows of verses and chapters of a book of 66 books, a protestant bible.

The number of the name. -- In 1551, resulting from a work done in the name of a cardinal spiritual ministry, a version of New Testament was first divided. And in 1560, in the name of the spiritual ordinance of an archbishop, an English translation of the Scriptures was entirely divided into the verse-chapter division that the doctrines of faiths-beliefs of the earth have been imposing upon the word.

The Hebrews did not accept imposition of these divisions and instead continued the ancient practice of referring to the eternal words by quoting the first few words of the paragraph. It was only later that some of the Hebrews adopted the Catholicist verses and chapter divisions for use in debates forced upon them by the alleged spiritual authorities.

When applying math operations for the consistency of the result 6,6,6 these operations require the counting of the sequences of verses, chapters and books from a book of 66 books.

---

...requirement to humble himself before his god

-

The words 'before his god' fit into the same type of righteousness that came from the Scribes of early Yudaism and the copies of ancient testament they had made.

To do the same righteousness of the Scribes is believing in the lie that the Celestial would have ever sanctified the Generic term god and elohim.

To cover the lie with another lie is what the religions and doctrines of faiths do by using a capitalized 'g' or 'e' to camouflage the generic term god and elohim

and then sanctify what the Celestial did not sanctify,

because the service of the doctrines of faiths is to carry out the will of their father of belief--lie i.e. the dragon, a specialist on camouflages and in making one believe.

quote:

---

According to the righteousness of the Scribes who made copies of the scriptures and translated the Ancient Testament to you,

there is nothing more righteous than using the same Generic term 'god' to refer to the images [the calves; a deity or heathen god]

and at the same time to refer to the Eternal.

What causes the Generic term elohim--god(s) to be the name of a Camel being swallowed by the Scribes of Yudaism, and of religion and doctrines of faiths, is the fact that ELYON did not sanctify the generic term god and elohim (gods).

אל EL abbreviation of ELYON

Jehaveh'óshua––I AM IS THE SALVATION said: The Scribes took the keys of the door of Scripture and hid them; nor did they enter, and those who desired to enter, they permitted them not. You, however, be precautious with serpents and innocent with doves! –– (The Tomah Gospel Paraphrased).

To be precautious with serpents or being prudent as with serpents is not acting hastely but seeing first that the scripture they translate have been substituting EL אל (abbreviation of ELYON––which means THE ONE THAT DECLARES) with both generic terms god and elohim––a common generic designation for deities in the Middle east.

---

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear Greyseal, It is great to hear from you again.

Hi JRTjr - haven't really had time to look at your email, yet, they're normally quite detailed, but I will get to it!

I have to agree with you on your points in this posting. Greyseal writes: the amount of literary heavy-lifting done by most believers seems to be minimal Unfortunately I have found this to be true about people across the board, not just the “believers”

I actually don't recall all I was saying here, but you're probably right. There's quite a lot of people on both sides of the debate that haven't and won't read the bible even the criticise it, but iirc in this particular case, every single webpage for a hundred or so seemed to share not only religiosity, but also vocabulary, style, facts and source (singular) and appeared to be a carbon copy in all but name.

Greyseal writes: to pretend that translations change nothing than the language is a big mistake, and I think to pretend that whilst scribes are really, really good at what they do, to pretend that they can't make mistakes or would not make changes for any reason is foolish. This is also so true. A direct translation ‘word for word’ (per say) would not make much sense especially with two completely unique languages. However, I believe there may be a variable you may be overlooking. If God is the author of the Bible (as the Bible claims), then would you not have to take into account God’s ability to keep the errors and tendencies of scribes to ‘add’ or ‘change things’ to a minimum?

Well that's the question! Is it fair to ask how powerful god is by bringing up the fact that even amongst believers there is vehement disagreement over such a simple word as "yom"? Can we be sure that sects and splintered offshoots won't appear (such as JW's and LDS's already have) which won't rewrite the bible (and/or recanonize such as already happened in ~3rd century CE) - there's been disagreements aplenty amongst and between samaritans, jews, christians, muslims, catholics, protestants, "NT-only" xians and more already about which books do and do not belong, what the translations mean, what the context is, how important various verses are when stacked up against each other, which version of the ten commandments are followed and so on.

The bible in it's many forms is undoubtedly old, but the originals ARE lost, and older versions (dead sea scrolls for example) are different to the newer ones...I think that's why there was (and is) a movement towards trying to pull out the "lessons" (which definitely shapes the lessons themselves!) from the "historical" text, and treating the text itself as a parable more than a history lesson, which probably fed into the backlash that we see today in the 6-24hour-long-it-all-really-happened viewpoints held hard and fast by certain denominations.

You may hope this won't influence the bible, but history appears to tell us it already has and certainly will.

I think it's easier for a non-believer to study such a phenomenon, since they have no preconceived notions that such a change can't happen...

Dear CrazyDiamond7,

CrazyDiamond7 writes: When quoting the Words of truth, then to use the verse numbers (that they placed beside the eternal word) is calling them 'worthy of reverence in matters to the Spirit and is naming them as legitimate authority from above to rule over the Scriptures

So, you are saying that the “New International Version (©1984)”, the “New American Standard Bible (©1995)” and the “English Standard Version (©2001)”, that you pulled quotes from, are indeed “Words of truth” “the Scriptures” of the Most High?

CrazyDiamond7 writes: The words 'before his god' fit into the same type of righteousness that came from the Scribes of early Yudaism and the copies of ancient testament they had made. To do the same righteousness of the Scribes is believing in the lie that the Celestial would have ever sanctified the Generic term god and elohim. To cover the lie with another lie is what the religions and doctrines of faiths do by using a capitalized 'g' or 'e' to camouflage the generic term god and elohim and then sanctify what the Celestial did not sanctify, because the service of the doctrines of faiths is to carry out the will of their father of belief--lie i.e. the dragon, a specialist on camouflages and in making one believe.

You clam that the “the Celestial” would not sanctify the use of “the Generic term god and elohim” however, apparently, He will sanctify the term “the Celestial”? You are, after all, using the generic term “the Celestial” in the same way that those evil “religions and doctrines of faiths” used “the Generic term god and elohim”; are you not?

-

You are, after all, using the generic term 'the Celestial' in the same way that those evil “religions and doctrines of faiths” used “the Generic term god and elohim”; are you not?

-

The problem is 'elohim--god(s)' is not just a Generic term:

According to all Encyclopedias and biblical dictionaries that explain the origin of the Camel's name elohim/god(s),

it was a Common Generic designation for deities (calves, idols, heathen gods and baalim) in the Middle east on the days of MOSHEH.

-

...in the same way that those religions and doctrines of faiths

-

Revelation **:* And all the inhabitants of the earth will be found to be worshipping the beast: all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that died even in beginning of the world. -- Weymouth New Testament Paraphrased

One might verify the Scripture confirms that ALL the world has been amazed after the beast,

therefore many have been believing in Scribes of early Yudaism, after all, by using that same righteousness of the Scribes:

that there's nothing more righteous than to use the common generic term elohim--god(s) for the deities, calves, baalim, abominations of the land and the heathen which is less than nothing,

and then use that same common generic term in reference to the Eternal and Celestial too.

-

So many have swallowed the same Camel i.e. called elohim--god(s) substituting the original Hebrew word EL (abbreviation of ELYON/THE ONE THAT DECLARES

If one verifies that the mistranslation is real
then it is also real that it is not a problem of the size of a fly going after a camel,

it is called 'a Camel' because its size is over 2,311 times in which the mistranslation elohim--god(s) had been replacing the word EL of ELYON in the translations that came from the spiritual ordinance of the Scribes of early Yudaism.

quote:

---

2nd When making the †segnale of the cicatrice stigmata
the glittering word of I AM said: IN THE PLACE OF MY NAME, wounding the forehead of a scarlet Roman Force that was, and is not, and is †sealed to go into perdition.

3rd All the world wondered after the doctrine which had the deadly wound by the sword and lived; For it was given to continue until a time of times. ½.And as a wound in the shape of a CROSS cannot be cicatrized by itself,

BY THE †SIGN of that miracle a †cicatrix mark has been received on the forehead in the [place of a] name, or a reverence by quoting its verse numbers *REQUIRED to sell the word by which the souls are bought.

-

* In 1560 the Scriptures were entirelly divided into the verse numbering form, but the sequence placed before the eternal word by a Roman spiritual ordinance belongs to Vivi Sei

---

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear CrazyDiamond7,

CrazyDiamond7 writes: JRTjr writes: You are, after all, using the generic term 'the Celestial' in the same way that those evil “religions and doctrines of faiths” used “the Generic term god and elohim”; are you not? - The problem is 'elohim--god(s)' is not just a Generic term: According to all Encyclopedias and biblical dictionaries that explain the origin of the Camel's name elohim/god(s), the generic term elohim/god(s) is not just a Generic term; it was a Common Generic designation for deities (calves, idols, heathen gods and baalim) in the Middle east on the days of MOSHEH.

So, your answer is “Yes”; Right?!?; After all the term “the Celestial” reflects the same generality as “elohim” {I.E. “The Celestial” is “a Common Generic designation for deities (calves, idols, heathen gods…)” }.

Dear Greyseal,

Thank you again for you correspondences.

Are you complaining that “every single webpage for a hundred or so seemed to share not only religiosity, but also vocabulary, style, facts and source (singular) and appeared to be a carbon copy in all but name. ” or that “…amongst believers there is vehement disagreement over such a simple word as "yom"?”

I would say that this is exactly why Scripture says to: “21… test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast. (1 Thessalonians 5:21 Amplified Bible)

See the Creator of the universes is not going to ask me what everyone else said or did; He is going to require an account of my actions from me.

In other words each person is responsible for their own thought, beliefs, and deeds.

Greyseal writes: The bible in it's many forms is undoubtedly old, but the originals ARE lost, and older versions (dead sea scrolls for example) are different to the newer ones... … You may hope this won't influence the bible, but history appears to tell us it already has and certainly will.

The variations between the different versions and between the ‘Dead See Scrolls’ and the modern ‘Canonized Bible’ are, surprisingly, small.

Randall Price put it this way: “The claim of the critics is that the many thousands of manuscripts, each with its own variants, have produced so many discrepancies in the New Testament Text that it is impossible to reconstruct the original. Therefore, we cannot really know what was written, let alone what happened, in the first century. Indeed, the 400,000-some variants estimated by Bart Ehrman appear to be a significant number of “errors.”

However, one key fact is that from the earliest copies to the latest copies (about 1400 years later) the New Testament increased only 2 percent (about 2500 words) in size. Since the earliest texts essentially agree with the latest texts, this indicates not only a small amount of growth but also an exceptionally stable process of transmission. ” {Searching for the Original Bible’ ©2007 by World of the Bible Ministries pg. 115}

Another interesting tidbit about these ‘variants’ is that, according to Dr. Price, some 75% of these ‘variants’ are “simply nonsense readings or differences in spelling (which was never standardized). ”

I am not sure what he means by “nonsense readings” but it is interesting that only 1% of these variants are “both meaningful and viable (affect the translation) ”; again according to Dr. Price. {‘Searching for the Original Bible’ ©2007 by World of the Bible Ministries pg. 116}

When you get into, what changes have been maid in the manuscripts we still have copies of, you start to realize that the differences are vary small. The Dead See Scrolls do not over turn or change one major doctrine of Biblical Christianity. If it did we would hear about it ‘day in’ and ‘day out’ from the media.

Greyseal writes: I think that's why there was (and is) a movement towards trying to pull out the "lessons" (which definitely shapes the lessons themselves!) from the "historical" text, and treating the text itself as a parable more than a history lesson, which probably fed into the backlash that we see today in the 6-24hour-long-it-all-really-happened viewpoints held hard and fast by certain denominations.

I have found that, generally speaking, the reason people want to treat the Bible: “as a parable more than a history lesson” is that if they accept it as ‘the Word of God’ then they have to accept the authority of God over their lives. They use all kinds of excuses for not accepting the Bible as literal but once you boil it down it usually has more to do with their stubborn pride /I want to do things my way/ then any facts.

Greyseal writes: I think it's easier for a non-believer to study such a phenomenon, since they have no preconceived notions that such a change can't happen...

Actually, many “non-believers” have studied these things and become believers because of the evidence.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf1 set out to disprove the Resurrection {and thus the Bible}. What he ended up doing is becoming one of the worlds leading apologists for the Christian faith.

Dr. Terry Watkins, Th.D. writes: "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ." (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29). Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history! Dial-the-Truth Ministries

I became a ‘believer’ at fourteen, although I had gone to church with my family since before I was born. As a teenager (and into my early adulthood) I was plagued by the question: Is there evidence {scientific evidence} that refutes the Biblical claims?; and if so what should I do about that?

I am now in my early forties and I have not come across a single piece of ‘scientific evidence’ that refutes what the Bible says. However, I have found evidences that caused me to adjust my interpretation of what the Bible says.

{I try to be careful to look at what the ‘evidence’ says; and not the conjecture of Scientists and Theologians or my own prejudices}

Dr. Greenleaf put it this way:

Dr. Greenleaf writes: In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin. Testimony of the Evangelists

1. Simon Greenleaf

1783-1853, American legal writer, b. Newburyport, Mass. A member of the Maine bar, he won a high reputation for legal scholarship early in his career. With the admission (1820) of Maine as a state, he was elected to a term in the legislature and was appointed reporter of the Maine Supreme Court. In 1833 he resigned this position and accepted the invitation of Joseph Story to become a professor of law at Harvard. Much of the excellence of Harvard Law School is attributed to these two men. Greenleaf's Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vol., 1842-53) for many years was the standard American work on the subject. Another text used for many years was his revision (5 vol., 1849-50) of William Cruise's. {Digest of the Law of Real Property[/url] -->Digest of the Law of Real Property}