lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 18, 2007 9:23:42 GMT -4
The world IS controlled by a mysterious "them" who want most of us dead. They control the media so that you hear only what they want you to hear. They still haven't enough power to do what they want so, for now, they need to stay hidden, though they're getting bolder. Scripture tells us that it's only the power of God that keeps the evil one and his minions from bringing their plan to fruition, but He won't restrain forever. These people need to be exposed and brought to justice, but since they control the media, that's not going to happen. That same controlled media is adept at influencing opinions and beliefs to persuade the masses that those who condemn their actions are bad evil murdering grunts. They sold you on the idea. From there it's not a big step to killing truthers (and Christians) as a public service. The Book of Revelation tells us what's going to happen. Nothing we can do will change the fact that a one-world government led by the Antichrist is going to take power and destroy on an unprecedented level. Nobody is going to stop this from happening by murdering authority figures. What's needed is repentance on an individual level and turning to Christ so as to escape the coming judgment. It's a spiritual battle. Do have you have any evidence to support any of the above?* If so perhaps you'd be willing to share it with us, a new thread might be appropriate. By any chance do you believe that this mysterious media-controlling group of genocidal Antichrists is made up of members of a specific ethnic or religious group? How do non-Christians and Christians you don't consider "true" Christians (Mormons and Catholic IIRC, did I miss any?) fit into this "spiritual battle"? * As to what you claim is in the Bible perhaps you could cite the specific passages.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 18, 2007 19:02:50 GMT -4
Also cite those passages from the oldest version you can find as well as the King James to see how different they are.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 19, 2007 0:55:08 GMT -4
Ah, the New World Order. Don't it just make you feel warm inside knowing that there are people in this world who care enough to actually shape our destiny's for us. My favorite quote about this is from Churchill.
Of course he was just a CT.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 19, 2007 3:10:06 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers, do you have any evidence to support your claims?
3onthetree, if you're going to say that the secret conspiracy is Jews, why don't you just say it, instead of quoting an article I can only find quoted on conspiracy theory web-sites?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 19, 2007 8:09:20 GMT -4
Of course he was just a CT.
Appeal to authority. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and astrology; William Shakespeare (presumably) believed in witchcraft and ghosts.
Further, in 1920 there was extremely strong and credible evidence of a worldwide Communist conspiracy (Communists having recently overthrown the Russian government, and being in the process of attempting to export their revolution).
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 19, 2007 9:02:22 GMT -4
What sort of crap is this, are you trying to imply something, or are you just pig ignorant? You can't have looked to hard for that quote, maybe you were afraid it might make you faint if you delved into the dark side.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 19, 2007 9:30:55 GMT -4
Of course he was just a CT.Appeal to authority. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and astrology; William Shakespeare (presumably) believed in witchcraft and ghosts. Further, in 1920 there was extremely strong and credible evidence of a worldwide Communist conspiracy (Communists having recently overthrown the Russian government, and being in the process of attempting to export their revolution). No no, the Comintern was just a Saturday afternoon tea-party society...
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 19, 2007 9:33:04 GMT -4
Of course he was just a CT.Appeal to authority. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and astrology; William Shakespeare (presumably) believed in witchcraft and ghosts. Further, in 1920 there was extremely strong and credible evidence of a worldwide Communist conspiracy (Communists having recently overthrown the Russian government, and being in the process of attempting to export their revolution). Yes there was but I think the lead reference of Spartacus-Weishaupt, who has been credited as the founder of the Illuminati and may also have been long dead by 1920 makes him not fit your communist revolution exportation theory.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Apr 19, 2007 10:44:02 GMT -4
Now or back when those stones were erected? THEY don't seem to be very successful in the reduction of the population. Another quote from that site: "The mission statement held secretly in so many hearts that want a better world"" Of course, the best way to keep something secret, is to erect some monument. With logic like that, it is no wonder, THEY couldn't prevent the population increase by approx 2 billion people.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 19, 2007 12:13:53 GMT -4
Yes there was but I think the lead reference of Spartacus-Weishaupt, who has been credited as the founder of the Illuminati and may also have been long dead by 1920 makes him not fit your communist revolution exportation theory.
Whether Churchill actually believed that the Bavarian Illuminati were still in existence in 1920 is unclear from the passage. He may merely have meant that they were the ideological, rather than the organizational, antecedents of the Communists. You have also, of course, made no allowance for hyperbole, or careless or imprecise use of language.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 19, 2007 18:53:32 GMT -4
Also cite those passages from the oldest version you can find as well as the King James to see how different they are.
Actually the age of the translation is not a good factor as some older translations have been shown to be quite wrong because older original language documents have been found and so modern translations take those into account when the old translations didn't. For instance the Dead Sea Scrolls have been useful in checking and working on the translations of many of the Old Testament Books and older versions of the letters of Paul and the Gospel have come to light in the past hundred years that have shown us things that we didn't know, such as one passage that was in later versions of one of the Gospel but didn't appear in earlier ones, now seems to have been removed for a time and then restored, something we learned through finding older manuscripts.
There are a lot of translation errors in the KJV, most of which are well known, and many of which have been fixed since (though some persist, for example the use of the word "bat" in Leviticus 11:19. The actual meaning of the Hebrew word is unknown, but the translators of the KJV used "bat." It's wrong, we know it's wrong, but because the real meaning is unknown and people are used to it being bat, modern translators have kept it anyway regardless of the fact it's wrong.)
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 19, 2007 21:51:16 GMT -4
What sort of crap is this, are you trying to imply something, or are you just pig ignorant? Considering all the half-assed unfounded and erroneous crap you've posted here you're not really in a position to refer to anyone else as “ignorant” let alone “pig ignorant” . Maybe I'm an idiot too oh anointed one, I couldn't find it anywhere but on CT sites either, perhaps you can illuminate us and provide a link to a reliable site with the quote. Even if he said it as others have pointed out it does little to prove your case. He was a politician and soldier not really a historian (though he did write a few books during the course of his life and their was a world-wide conspiracy to control the world (Communism). If Churchill really said it the reference to Spartacus who had be dead for about 2000 years was obviously figurative as were presumably his references to Weishaupt and the French Revolution. Perhaps you can try and show otherwise by producing other Churchill quotes indicating he thought there had been an ongoing conspiracy dating back to 70 BC. As for the other quotes even if they are authentic the speakers weren’t referring to the type of new world order you seem to think they were.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 19, 2007 22:12:16 GMT -4
Actually the age of the translation is not a good factor as some older translations have been shown to be quite wrong because older original language documents have been found and so modern translations take those into account when the old translations didn't. For instance the Dead Sea Scrolls have been useful in checking and working on the translations of many of the Old Testament Books and older versions of the letters of Paul and the Gospel have come to light in the past hundred years that have shown us things that we didn't know, such as one passage that was in later versions of one of the Gospel but didn't appear in earlier ones, now seems to have been removed for a time and then restored, something we learned through finding older manuscripts. There are a lot of translation errors in the KJV, most of which are well known, and many of which have been fixed since (though some persist, for example the use of the word "bat" in Leviticus 11:19. The actual meaning of the Hebrew word is unknown, but the translators of the KJV used "bat." It's wrong, we know it's wrong, but because the real meaning is unknown and people are used to it being bat, modern translators have kept it anyway regardless of the fact it's wrong.) Fair enough. But DH is a Biblical literalist, and my point is that, given the changes and errors in translation over the last couple thousand years, that's a bit disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 19, 2007 22:35:32 GMT -4
Fair enough. But DH is a Biblical literalist, and my point is that, given the changes and errors in translation over the last couple thousand years, that's a bit disingenuous.
Well depends on what you mean by literalist... I take the Bible at face value, ie if it says something in a context, then it probably means that, but there are parts where it is obviously using symbolic language and should be taken as such. At the same time I also understand that due to translation issues that some words are either unknown, or may have multiple means that all fit the context. Going back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek and working from there helps. Remembering who it was written too helps a lot too. Placing today's society values and beliefs onto the writtings of a different culture place and time is never a good idea. Seeing through the writer's eyes and the eyes of the recipients of the writings helps to go a long way to understanding the Bible.
Also given that the errors and changes (other then in language structure) aren't actually as many as some people try and make them, throwing out the 98% because the 2% could be wrong is a bad idea.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 20, 2007 0:27:49 GMT -4
It probably also helps to remember that we don't have the original texts for any of the Bible books. Even the newer translations that are labled "more accurate" are only good guesswork at what was original at best.
|
|