Bible

[Aaron]

young woman

The Greek priest who forged the “Gospel according to St. Matthew”, having before him the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah, fables the Jewish Mary yielding to the embraces of the Angel Gabriel to engender Jesus, and backs it up by appeal to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah VII, 14:

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” (Matt. I, 23.)

Isaiah’s original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words underscored, reads:

“Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel”;

Which, falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, renders thus in the English:

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, “conceived,” which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action.

Honestly translated, the verse reads:

“Behold, the young woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”

Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. But in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, virgin, with the definite article 'ha' in Hebrew, and e in Greek, (the), rendered into the indefinite "a" by later falsifying translators.

This is exactly right - it is a fact that this is what was written originally.

“Behold, the young woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”

The copper scrolls weren't needed to teach this but they certainly reiterated
it. Since you posted this, I can say this. There never was any reference
to a virgin as in never having intercourse. The literal honest translation
was simply a young woman.

The immaculate conception story is just that, a completely made up out
of thin air story. It was common for the crafters of The Book to overlay
astrology/astronomy with real events to create more "magic" than there
was. The Star of Bethlehem being a supernova that exploded in the area
of the womb of the constellation Virgo or Virgin - that is the most likely
place where the story comes from.

Throughout time, there had been many, many stories that repeat an
immaculate conception story that spreads throughout many religions.
Even Buddha was born of a virgin and was so pure he was born through
her side - too pure to even be born of a vaginal birth - so the story goes.

[Schpankme]

Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix

The Bible does not mistreat women

After thousands of years of recorded history, we’re just now arriving at a point where women are starting to receive fair and equal treatment in many societies. It’s an irrefutable historical fact that some of the major sources of this unsolicited oppression were drawn from references of women’s treatment in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible (unequal treatment of women).

The Rules Of Marriage - In the “beginning”, God becomes angry with Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Although God punishes both for disobeying his commands, God says to Eve, “thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Additional punishment is given, such as Eve’s childbirth pains, which applies to the gender as a whole (women to live life in subservience to men).

Exodus provides very detailed instructions from God on women and marriage. For example, in the instance that a father sells his daughter to another man who is not pleased with her, she must be redeemed. If he so chooses, the first wife is not allowed to leave unless her master refuses her food, clothing, or other marriage duties (Exodus 21:7-11). If a man decides he no longer wants to be married to his wife, he can attempt to have her killed by claiming that she lost her virginity prior to their marriage. Following this accusation, the woman must then provide sufficient physical evidence, such as a bloodstain, to demonstrate that his accusations are fraudulent. In the event that she fails to prove her innocence of this “crime,” she is to be stoned to death because of this utmost act of disgrace. If evidence is produced to exonerate the woman in question, the accuser is fined a couple pounds of silver and forced to stay married until death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Equal protection under God?

According to Moses the wife’s well-being is irrelevant, as the deceased father’s inheritance goes entirely to his sons. If he has no son, it goes to the daughters. After that, the inheritance should go to the closest male relatives (Numbers 27:8-11). The wife is noticeably absent from the will, God’s law forces her to marry her husband’s brother, provided she doesn’t already have a son with her former husband. However, the brother-in-law has the right to refuse the marriage; the woman does not (Deuteronomy 25:5-9). Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul. If a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days while she undergoes the same ritual for her menstrual period. She must then be purified for thirty-three days and barred from entering worship during this time. If she produces a girl, the sentence of solitary confinement is doubled to fourteen and sixty-six days, respectively (Leviticus 12:1-5).

Woman’s Darkest Hour - Rape, the paramount fear of many women, rears its ugly head in the Bible as well. Fortunately, God ensures that committing one of the most heinous acts known to man without God’s permission is only a pound of silver to her father and a forced marriage to the victim if she’s not already engaged or married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Yes, marry the man who savagely attacked her. If a man rapes an engaged virgin who doesn’t cry-out loud enough to draw attention, the community should consider the attack consensual, if it took place within the city. Thus, the w-h-o-r-e must be stoned to death per God’s instructions. The man will be stoned to death as well, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but only because he “violated another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 22:24). It's clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim.

In the matter of Moses’ war victory over the Midianites, his army takes thousands of war prisoners. Moses then orders his army to kill the remaining men, boys, and women who have already slept with a man, “but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18). Even God receives thirty-two virgins as his share of the spoils (Numbers 31:40-41). When...the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall by thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

More Old Testament Atrocities - One other mistreatment by omission should come to mind of sexual relations between fathers and daughters. Notably Lot’s daughters getting him drunk to become pregnant by him (Genesis 19:30-38). Had God considered this a reprehensible act, one would assume that it would be noted in some way for its distastefulness. The historical books, Joshua through Esther, begin the popular trend of multiple-wife lifestyles. Among those with several wives and/or concubines are Gideon, Elkanah, David, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Solomon who is the winner with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Those divinely inspired biblical authors wholeheartedly claim that God looks upon these men favorably. Several more cruelties perpetrated against women are found in these historical books. Such atrocities include a woman given away as a prize (Judges 1:12-13); a woman offered as a sacrifice (Judges 11:29-39); married daughters given to other people (Judges 15:2); rape, murder, and mutilation by a mob; (Judges 19:22-30); abduction of virgins (Judges 21:7-23); purchasing of wives (Ruth 4:10 and 1 Samuel 18:25-27); and God punishing David by allowing his son to sleep with his wives and concubines, an act for which the women were later imprisoned (2 Samuel 12:11-12, 16:22, 20:3). Proverbs, mentions more acts, to numerous to list that reiterate how women can be evil, strange, adulterous, foolish, contentious, etc. The book concludes with an observation on the rarity of a virtuous woman. According to the author, if you find one such woman, she’s worth far more than rubies (Proverbs 31:10).

The books of prophecy, Isaiah through Malachi, have the most vivid images of God tormenting women. Some examples of God’s actions not previously covered include the giving away of people’s wives (Jeremiah 8:10), justifying a woman being raped (Jeremiah 13:22), making men “become as women” (Jeremiah 50:37), denouncing menstruation (Ezekiel 18:6), telling Hosea to acquire a wife that he knew would be purchased (Hosea 3:1-2), aborting children in their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 9:11-12 and 13:16), ridiculing an army by labeling them women (Nahum 3:13), and taking part in a war concluding with women being raped (Zechariah 11:4).

New Testament Atrocities - The outlook doesn’t substantially improve for women in the New Testament either. The author of Ephesians insists that wives should submit to their husbands in everything (5:22-24). Remember, the woman has no right to divorce the man. The authors of Colossians, Titus, and 1 Peter all agree that women should submit to their husbands (3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, respectively). The books of Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies (1 Peter 3:2-6), refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple (1 Peter 3:7), and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house (2 Peter 2:8 referring to Genesis 19:4-8). A man with the immoral qualities of Lot cannot be regarded as righteous unless you discount the inherent rights of all people, more specifically, the inherent rights of women. The author of Timothy, insists women should remain silent and fully submissive to their husband, and it was Eve in the Garden of Eden, implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man (1 Timothy 2:9-15). As to widows, he says we should leave these women in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. A widow experiencing pleasure while she’s still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the author’s eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows aren’t worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15).

Paul is the single most important figure in getting Christianity to where it is today. Unfortunately, he is also one of the most sexist people of the New Testament. Paul is very adamant in his belief that women aren’t useful for much more than sexually satisfying their husbands. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). Paul also tells a story in his letter to the Romans about men “leaving the ‘natural use’ of the woman” to have sexual relations with other men (Romans 1:27). Paul also says women, who are the glory of men, were made for men, who are the glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:3-9), clearly implying chain of importance goes Jesus first, man second, and woman last. Paul establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads or shaven them. Later, Paul declares a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering (1 Corinthians 11:5-7). He also doesn’t permit women to speak in church, “they are commanded to be under obedience” according to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Are Women Equal To Men? - Women had suffered terribly for thousands of years because of what men, not any god, wrote in the Bible. To some extent, women still endure coarse treatment stemming from their own religious beliefs and those observed by their husbands. You do realize that the authors of the Pentateuch were not divinely inspired to write declarations of women as the sole property of men. Instead, the books should once again read as though some group is depending upon the gullibility of the people to serve their own desires. In essence, the Old Testament authors misled the New Testament authors into believing that they actually recorded the “wonderful” and “loving” God’s authentic orders. Not knowing any other society than the one in which they were raised, the New Testament authors felt compelled to endorse these regulations. Many Christians continue to adhere to these cruel, senseless, and morally bankrupt codes, but most have illogically faith in following God’s eternal commands. Many Christians have declared that the Old Testament regulations died when Jesus arrived, but three key verses can once again tell us that this simply isn’t a valid deduction. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:7). “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). Furthermore, as the New Testament instructions postdate Jesus’ life, the failed suggestion doesn’t even attempt to resolve the problems created by New Testament authors. Even if we allow the repeal of these old traditions, this act does not justify centuries of biblical oppression!

Ref: Dr Jason Long, Biblical Nonsense

Schpankme

[rickoff]

Hey Rick,

You sound like Bill Clinton. Would you like to define the word "is" for the class?

Funny you should say that when you are the one making up definitions as to the words that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. As shown below, you leave out the most important words, the "three days," which are what defines what Jesus said. The three days time factor is the the only comparison to Jonah that Jesus explicitly states.

It really amazes me that the text specifically says: AS JONAH WAS, so SHALL the Son of man -- not UNLIKE Jonah but LIKE Jonah. Define for me, "How was Jonah in the Belly of the fish"?

Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Nothing more, and nothing less can be read into Jesus' statement to the Pharisees:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matthew 12:40

If you can find any place in the Bible where Jesus explicitly states that he would remain alive while three days and nights entombed, after being killed (as he told his disciples he would be), let me know. Otherwise, your contention is pure hogwash.

Was Jesus, THREE days and THREE nights in the tomb.

My answer is YES.

“Please note”, “that the word “THREE” is repeated F-O-U-R times in this verse to prove that Jesus was going to fulfill the prophecy.

With that I can agree.

We must also not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was “before sunrise” on Sunday morning (the FIRST day of the week), that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty:

Again I agree.

FRIDAY - placed in tomb just before sunset (One night)

SATURDAY - supposed to be in tomb (One day & One night)

SUNDAY - missing before sunrise

TOTAL: One Day & Two Nights in the Tomb (1 X 3) = (3 X 3)

Here's where I disagree. That would only prove true if Jesus was placed in the tomb on a Friday, and that cannot be the case for the reason I noted in my previous post. Friday would only hold true if Jesus was entombed in 33 AD, and that just isn't possible. If you actually read my previous post you would understand that Jesus was born before 4 BC, when Herod died. That would make Jesus at least 37 years of age if he died in 33 AD. Do you follow that reasoning? Okay, then, so how old was Jesus at the time of his death? The Bible does not directly state that fact, but his age can be closely approximated to be about 32 or 33 by understanding what is told. Luke 3 makes two important statements that allow us to closely approximate Jesus' age, and the year, at the time of his baptism by John the Baptist. Luke 3:23 states that, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.." Now "about" does not necessarily mean exactly, but it could reasonably be expected to mean that Jesus was at least very close to the age of 30 when He was baptized. Luke 3:1 also provides a strong reference to the year that Jesus was baptized, saying, that it was "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" that John began baptizing people, including Jesus. Tiberius served the first 2 years of his reign in a co-regency with Augustus, and had sole reign after the death of Augustus, which occurred in 14 AD. So if we count forward 15 years from 12 AD, when Tiberius began his reign, that brings us to 27 AD as the year when Jesus was baptized, and began his ministry. And if he was 30 at that time, then he would have been born either early in 4 BC, shortly before Herod's death, or perhaps in December of 5 BC. This is pure and simple reasoning and mathematics, based upon Gospel statements and historical facts.

You seem to know your arithmetic!

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment, although the math concerning this could certainly be done easily enough by any third grader, as could the research and reasoning by anyone taking the time to discover the facts.

Anyways, since we must accept that Jesus was about 30 years old at the time of his baptism, and beginning of his ministry in 27AD, this gives us a starting point by which we can determine the year when he died. To determine this, we look to the Gospel of John, which gives the most complete chronology of Jesus' public ministry. From this, we are told that there were three Passovers during this time period that John has witnessed and is writing about:

1. First Passover of Jesus' ministry - John 2:13,22.
2. Second Passover - John 6:4. During this Passover, the account of Jesus feeding the 5,000 is given.
3. The Last Passover - John 13-19. The meal that Jesus and his disciples took on the night of his betrayal and arrest was the traditional Passover Seder, observed on the 14th day of the first Jewish month, Nisan.

A lot transpired between the time Jesus was baptized, and the time when he first observed Passover with his disciples, so it is fairly safe, and quite reasonable, to assume that the first Passover listed above occurred in 28 AD, the second in 29 AD, and the third in 30 AD. Again, the math is quite simple and straightforward. So now we need to understand what the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan would relate to. Looking at a Jewish calendar for the year 30 AD, one can see that the 14th day of Nisan occurred on April 2, a Tuesday. The Jewish day of Passover began at sunset on Tuesday, April 2nd, and lasted until sunset on Wednesday, April 3rd, at which time the Feast of the Unleavened Bread began. Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, April 3, and laid in the tomb just before sunset on that day, as we are told, in Luke 23:

Luke 23:52 - This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
Luke 23:53 - And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
Luke 23:54 - And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

So Jesus was laid in the tomb as "the sabbath drew on," meaning that the sabbath was soon approaching. Now here you will probably say, "Aha! If the Sabbath is about to begin then Jesus must have been placed in the tomb Friday, because the Jewish sabbath begins at sundown on Friday. This was obviously the same erroneous conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church arrived at. The weekly Jewish sabbath does begin at sundown on Friday, but that is not the sabbath spoken of in Luke 23:54. That reference is to one of the seven annual sabbaths observed by the Jews, as described in Leviticus 23, and known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or Chag HaMotzi:

Leviticus 23:5 - In the fourteenth day of the first month [Nisan] at even is the LORD's passover.
Leviticus 23:6 - And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

So the annual sabbath known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread always occurs on the 15th of Nisan, at the conclusion of Passover, regardless of the day of the week on which it falls. And Wednesday, April 3, 30 AD, at sundown was the beginning of that sabbath feast. The weekly sabbath began at sundown on Friday, April 5th, 30 AD, and lasted until sundown Saturday April 6th, 30 AD. We know that Mary Magdeline came to the tomb after the weekly sabbath had passed, and as the sun was just rising on Sunday, the first day of the week, as stated in Mark 16:

Mark 16:1 - And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.
Mark 16:2 - And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


At this time, Jesus had already risen. He had stated that he would remain in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, and that statement was fulfilled as of sundown of the previous evening, Saturday April 6th, 30 AD. As Mark 16:9 tells us, "Jesus was risen early on the first day of the week.." As the first day of the week was Sunday, and since that day began at sundown on Saturday, "early on the first day" would be soon after sunset on Saturday.

Let's recap the chronology of events, from Jesus' last Passover meal with his disciples, to His ressurection:

14th of Nisan

• Passover Seder / Tuesday night, Apr. 2
• Crucifixion / Wednesday day, Apr. 3
• Burial / Wednesday @ sunset, Apr. 3 - Sunset starts 15th of Nisan

15th of Nisan

• First day in tomb / Sunset Wednesday Apr. 3 thru sunset Thursday Apr. 4

16th of Nisan

• Second day in tomb / Sunset Thurday Apr. 4 thru sunset Friday Apr. 5

17th of Nisan

• Third day in tomb / Sunset Friday Apr. 5 thru sunset Saturday Apr. 6

RESURRECTION

• Sat. April 6, approximately at, or soon after, sunset.

"Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" is fulfilled.

Are you saying that the entire Christian World are ignorant of the correct day of the so called crucifixion! It means that even the Roman Catholic Church -- which claims an unbroken chain of Popes from Peter to this day -- are mislead. Brilliant!

No, I am only saying that all those who maintain that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, in 33 AD, are definitely mistaken in their assumptions. If they understood the implications of that chronology, which is the same that you proposed, then obviously they would have to admit that Jesus had not fulfilled that which he spoke to the Pharisees. But that is an incorrect chronology - one that simply does not hold up when the facts, as I have presented them to you, are examined. Jesus kept his word, precisely as stated, and thus your argument falls flat on its face. Go ahead, check everything I have stated and see if you can find supportable evidence to fault my chronology. If so, then let me know the specifics of that, and only that fault. Otherwise, I am not interested in whatever nonsense you might want to put forward, and let this be the end of this matter.

Rick

[rickoff]

@Rick; Thanks for the additional research and insight.

Al

You're quite welcome, Al.

[Schpankme]

check everything...find supportable evidence to fault my chronology

Hey Rick,

Your amazing, please show me the chapters and verse where you found this chronology information in the Bible. Unfortunately, I'm unable locate the time-line you've provided in the more than 50 Bible Version that are available to me.

And Rick, the reason Jesus was 30 years of AGE when he started his ministry is because there is 12x30 degrees in the Zodiac = 360; as Jesus is the SUN/SON of GOD and the copied solar messiah.

Please review my previous post as I anticipated your Birth-date answer and provided the Last-Supper picture. The picture shows the 12 signs of the Zodiac and the SUN/SON of GOD who is in the house of Pisces and at the END OF THE AGE, will move into the next house following the WATER BARRIER (Aquarius).

I'll see your Age 30 - AD date, and raise you one solar messiah passage, countering your Time-Line chronology.

Luke 22:10 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.


14th of Nisan

* Passover Seder / Tuesday night, Apr. 2

* Crucifixion / Wednesday day, Apr. 3

* Burial / Wednesday @ sunset, Apr. 3 - Sunset starts 15th of Nisan

15th of Nisan

* First day in tomb / Sunset Wednesday Apr. 3 thru sunset Thursday Apr. 4

16th of Nisan

* Second day in tomb / Sunset Thurday Apr. 4 thru sunset Friday Apr. 5

17th of Nisan

* Third day in tomb / Sunset Friday Apr. 5 thru sunset Saturday Apr. 6

RESURRECTION

* Sat. April 6, approximately at, or soon after, sunset.

Schpankme

"The time has come for honest men to denounce false teachers and attack false gods." - Luther Burbank

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Aaron;

Al
I'm familiar with Tyndale a bit - but ANY change is unacceptable to me.
1% change bastardizes the the work as a whole.

From the Wiki link below; not very bastardized.

Moynahan writes: "A complete analysis of the Authorised Version, known down the generations as "the AV" or "the King James" was made in 1998. It shows that Tyndale's words account for 84% of the New Testament and for 75.8% of the Old Testament books that he translated.[23] Joan Bridgman makes the comment in the Contemporary Review that, "He [Tyndale] is the mainly unrecognised translator of the most influential book in the world. Although the Authorised King James Version is ostensibly the production of a learned committee of churchmen, it is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking of his translation."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;

The Reims Testament was reprinted twice at Antwerp — in 1600 and 1621 — and a fourth edition was issued at Rouen in 1633. Then it was allowed to rest for over a century, before a fifth edition appeared, with some slight changes, dated 1728, but without any place of publication stated. It is believed to have been printed in London and was edited by Dr. Challoner (afterwards bishop), and Father Blyth, a Carmelite. The Douay Bible was never after this printed abroad. A sixth edition of the Reims Testament was printed at Liverpool in 1788, and a seventh dated Dublin, 1803, which was the last Catholic edition. Several Protestant editions have appeared, the best known being a curious work by Rev. William Fulke, first published in 1589, with the Reims text and that of the Bishops' Bible in parallel columns. A Protestant edition of the Reims Testament was also brought out by Leavitt of New York, in 1834.

Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, "To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [KJ] Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock's, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's (1836) — the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein — Challoner's of 1749 — the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Douay Bible

I see 6 revised editions here and Cardinal Wiseman didn't think much of the revisions of Bishop Challoner.

You might want to save your money.

You can check out William Tyndale here;
William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or here;

The William Tyndale Home Page: William Tyndale and the History of the English Bible

Interesting report of the work done translating the Aramaic on the copper scroll by your friend. Did he mention the source it was obtained from? I'm just curious if it came from the Qumrun area. I doubt one scroll would destroy Christianity; to much evidence for it including millions of born-again Christians which is the point of the gospel Jesus taught.
I also read recently the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the collection in Jerusalem are being put on the web by the end of this year. That should also be interesting.

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Schpankme;

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANTIQUER View Post
The Bible does not mistreat women

This was your quote, not mine. Please don't attribute your quotes to me.

Jason Long, Biblical Nonsense -- refuted
Be sure to go to the site above and check out the referenced links (#) by this "DR."- of Pharmaceuticals. This is the relevant chapter:

Chapter 10
Yes, it's what you'd expect, in a chapter titled, "Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix." There is nothing new here; it's the same stuff we and our sister site answered, mainly in this series. For reference:
# The "rule over you" canard
# The "pain in childbirth" issue, as well as on menstruation -- Long fails to see the idea that deeming a woman "unclean" does not mean "dirty" (as noted in a link above) but is essentially a declared vacation at a time when it would be needed most.
# The Exodus 21:7-11 (see about 1/3 down)
# The Deut. 22:13-21 -- Long is badly informed if he thinks that a "woman who accidentally tears her hymen due to an injury or other non-sexual act is simply out of luck"; like any case in the ancient world, the matter would be brought before judges and elders to be decided upon, not merely slavishly followed like a pedantic manual of instruction.
# Long's objection that sons are favored in inheritance ignores the fact that such sons would be responsible for the care of any unmarried daughters, and that husbands would be responsible for their welfare once they were married. He also misses the point that in the ancient world, no woman would consider herself "forced" to marry her deceased husband's brother but would rather find it desirable to remain within the same family ingroup.
# The "childbirth is foul, especially of a girl" -- 1/2 way down; also more on the subject of menstruation
# The Deut. 22:28-29
# The Deut. 22:24 "too frightened to scream" argument, about 1/3 down. Long is not aware of the collective orientation of the ancient family; a pound of silver paid to the husband is for the sake of his entire household, which is injured by the attack.
# The Midianite "sex slaves"
# Long says that there is nothing in the OT of "explicit impermissibility of sexual relations between fathers and daughters." He dismisses the quite obvious condemnation implicit in the story of Lot as not good enough because of it "using disturbingly tranquil commentary."

Really? Perhaps Long ought to consider his desire for a more explicit, bang-on-the-head condemnation as a sign of his own lack, not the Bible's.

He also objects that this particular is not found in Leviticus 20:10-21, but "mother and son" is not on the list either. Evidence does not lead him to the conclusion that the ommission means "it was permissible, or at least somewhat condonable, for a father to rape his daughters." As one of the linked articles above noted, pedophilia was simply not a problem in Israelite society.
# A potpourri of incidences in which women are mistreated or harmed, although all are merely reported without endorsement (Long's vague claim that "God looks upon these men favorably", unsupported with texts or for these particulars, notwithstanding).
# The standard argument that Proverbs is full of advice to men on women. Is commentary from a father to his son is going to explain to him how he can find a good man?
# The standard Pauline issues about Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Cor. 11:3-9, 1 Cor. 14, and 1 Timothy. Long misses the point as well that in the New Testament world, women did indeed have a right to institute divorce proceedings. Lot is likewise condemned as "unrighteous" for a mistake made in a high-pressure situatiom surrounded by a mob.
# The usual false reading of 1 Cor. 7
# Long's reading of Romans 1:27 as meaning, "the natural use of a woman is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for a man" is his own, not found in Paul.

Al

[Aaron]

Dead Sea Scrolls

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Douay Bible

I see 6 revised editions here and Cardinal Wiseman didn't think much of the revisions of Bishop Challoner.

You might want to save your money.

Interesting report of the work done translating the Aramaic on the copper scroll by your friend. Did he mention the source it was obtained from? I'm just curious if it came from the Qumrun area. I doubt one scroll would destroy Christianity; to much evidence for it including millions of born-again Christians which is the point of the gospel Jesus taught.
I also read recently the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the collection in Jerusalem are being put on the web by the end of this year. That should also be interesting.

Al,

I like to see as many books as possible because I am the best judge
of what is divinely inspired or not for my own studies.

I'm not sure of all the details of the location, etc... just that they were
in the dead sea but I can tell you it is a lot more than just one scroll.

I think it is great that the public will have more access to more of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. But it is almost guaranteed there will be nothing revealed
that will greatly contradict the applecart - I hope I'm wrong because there
certainly is a lot of misconceptions in the common teachings and everyone
has a right to know.

[Aaron]

The Bible

as Jesus is the SUN/SON of GOD and the copied solar messiah.

Please review my previous post as I anticipated your Birth-date answer and provided the Last-Supper picture. The picture shows the 12 signs of the Zodiac and the SUN/SON of GOD who is in the house of Pisces and at the END OF THE AGE, will move into the next house following the WATER BARRIER (Aquarius).

This definitely isn't a new or unique position but the historical facts to
support it I believe for the most part are true.

About 11-12 years ago or so, my friend gave me a copy of The Naked
Truth:
The Naked Truth
It is a 2 hours video - that link is the full free version. I think it explains
a lot of things that cannot be disputed.

However, I believe in the concept that anything that is truly of divine
origin will be reflected throughout multiple topologies - I don't know what
else to call it. As above - so below, that is pretty much the concept.

In this context, to me (obviously I'm writing this so it is my opinion),
I believe the overall concept of the astrology/astronomical overlay on the
scriptural teachings - because I think it is too obvious.

But just because that may be so, it does not automatically rule out that
there may have been one or more individuals by various names throughout
history that paralleled the astrological equivelant and taught the parallel.

If anything, the parallel existence of astrological equivalents in my opinion
simply gives more credit to the underlying teachings as truly being of
divine origin.

I believe that there is absolutely a higher intelligence/power that rules the
Universe and then some - I'll call it God for simplicity - and that God will
have a message for mankind and that message will get through to us in
one way or another. Even if there are corrupt and evil people that
fabricate some or a lot of The Books for political purpose, God's message
will get through regardless and there is no way that evil intentions can hide
it.

From the discussion in this thread, I haven't studied the Bible in depth
as Al, Rick, and you (Schpankme) have - but to my own satisfaction, I have
deciphered the hidden teaching from Genesis all the way to Revelation
for a good number of years now and to my knowledge, it is like nothing
that is taught in any Church or anti-religious teaching.

It goes from Genesis in which the Garden of Eden is representative of a
pure state of mind untainted by judgment (reasoning mind) all the way to
revelation. The main point that I believe God intends to pass on to his
Children (us) is that it is a manual of consciousness with the keys to
unlock the frame of reference for our own existence to see who we are
all the way to how to get back in the driver's seat instead of being driven
by that slippery snake - the primal reasoning mind of man.

If that is off topic for everyone, I apologize but that is what I learned by
seeing what the Christian Bible has to tell me, which I believe has a
message above and beyond any astrological connection - which does not
contradict an astrological connection in one bit just as the astrological
connection does not contradict anything I am saying.

Anyway, I think any seeker will appreciate the video linked to above
even though their viewpoint is to counter the belief in any religion, not
just Christianity.

[Schpankme]

Biblical Nonsense -- refuted
Women are never denigrated in the Bible.

You are correct -> you said "Women are never denigrated in the Bible"; and then you were SHOWN incredible examples of Women/Female denigration from YOUR BIBLE, from the WORD OF GOD; and you try to dismiss EACH AND EVERY BIBLE PASSAGE AS IF IT WAS WRITTEN BUT DID NOT HAPPEN. Do you actually read an understand the TRASH you call the WORD of GOD? Lets look closely at the divine teaching of GOD, from your BIBLE (Byblos, βύβλος - Greek), and in its many Versions, Sub-Versions and Perversions.

1) Genesis 3:16, God says to Eve, “thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. Additional punishment is given to WOMEN as childbirth pains. Women to live life in subservience to men.

2) Exodus 21:7-11, Father's can sell daughters; and if the "Master" is not pleased with her, she must be "redeemed"; even if the "Master marries another woman" -- she is not allowed to leave unless her "Master" refuses her food, clothing, or other marriage duties.

3) Deuteronomy 22:13-21, A man can attempt to have his wife killed by claiming that she lost her virginity prior to their marriage. Following this accusation, the woman must provide physical evidence, such as a bloodstain, to prove her innocence of this “crime”. If evidence exonerates the woman, the accuser is fined a couple pounds of silver and forced to stay married until death.

4) Numbers 27:8-11, According to Moses the wife’s well-being is irrelevant, as the deceased father’s/husbands inheritance goes entirely to his sons or other family members. Thanks mom, now hand over your money and property, It's God's Word!

5) Deuteronomy 25:5-9, [U]If the husband dies, "and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." BUT, the husband's brother can refuse the marriage; "Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house." Note, that women have not right of refusal.

6) Leviticus 12:1-5, Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul. If a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days while she undergoes the same ritual for her menstrual period. She must then be purified for thirty-three days and barred from entering worship during this time. If she produces a girl, the sentence of solitary confinement is doubled to fourteen and sixty-six days, respectively. Women are punished for giving birth to females.

7) Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Woman’s Darkest Hour - Rape, God ensures that committing one of the most heinous acts known to man without God’s permission is only a pound of silver to her father and a forced marriage to the victim if she’s not already engaged or married.

8) Numbers 31:17-18, God tells Moses’ after his war victory over the Midianites, where his army takes thousands of war prisoners; [COLOR="Red"]"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Get a Virgin men, WAR is good with our perverted GOD.

9) Deuteronomy 21:10-14, "When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Yeehaw, I'm going to get me some of that over there!

10) Genesis 19:30-38, Lot’s daughters get him drunk to become pregnant by him. (you ole' drunk dog, two in the same night, bang bang) Did God considered this a reprehensible act, one would assume that it would be noted in some way for its distastefulness. can we say Incestuous

11) The historical books, Joshua through Esther, begin the popular trend of multiple-wife lifestyles. Noted are Gideon, Elkanah, David, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Solomon who is the winner with 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Judges 1:12-13, woman given away as a prize

Judges 11:29-39, woman offered as a sacrifice

Judges 15:2, married daughters given to other people

Judges 19:22-30, rape, murder, and mutilation by a mob abduction of virgins

Judges 21:7-23, Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin, kidnapping - "each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh"

Ruth 4:10, purchasing of wives

1 Samuel 18:25-27, Forced marriage; "And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." Mentally disturbing, as GOD demands 100-foreskins from dead solders.

2 Samuel 12:11-12, 16:22, 20:3, and God punishing David by allowing his son to sleep with his wive(s) and concubine(s), an act for which the women were later imprisoned. Surely the work of a sick mind.

Proverbs 31:10, "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies".

The books of prophecy, Isaiah through Malachi, have the most vivid images of God tormenting women. Here's some examples of God’s action:

Jeremiah 8:10, include the giving away of people’s wives

Jeremiah 13:22, justifying a woman being raped

Jeremiah 50:37, making men “become as women”

Ezekiel 18:6, denouncing menstruation

Hosea 3:1-2, telling Hosea, to acquire a wife that he knew would be purchased

Hosea 9:11-12, and 13:16, aborting children in their mothers’ wombs

Nahum 3:13, ridiculing an army by labeling them women

Zechariah 11:4, and taking part in a war concluding with women being raped.

New Testament Atrocities - The outlook doesn’t substantially improve for women in the New Testament either.

Ephesians 5:22-24, wives should submit to their husbands in everything

Colossians 3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, woman has no right to divorce the man.

1 Peter 3:2-6, women should submit to their husbands, Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies

1 Peter 3:7, refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple

2 Peter 2:8, referring to Genesis 19:4-8, and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house.

1 Timothy 2:9-15, insists women should remain silent and fully submissive to their husband, and it was Eve in the Garden of Eden, implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man.

1 Timothy 5:5-15, Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

Paul is the single most important figure in getting Christianity to where it is today. Unfortunately, he is also one of the most sexist people of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2, Paul is very adamant in his belief that women aren’t useful for much more than sexually satisfying their husbands.

Romans 1:27, Paul also tells a story in his letter to the Romans about men “leaving the ‘natural use’ of the woman” to have sexual relations with other men.

1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Paul says women, who are the glory of men, were made for men, who are the glory of God, clearly implying chain of importance goes Jesus first, man second, and woman last.

1 Corinthians 11:5-7, Paul establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads or shaven them. Later, Paul declares a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul also doesn’t permit women to speak in church, “they are commanded to be under obedience” according to the law.

Many Christians continue to adhere to these cruel, senseless, and morally bankrupt codes, but most have illogically faith in following God’s eternal commands.

Many Christians have declared that the Old Testament regulations died when Jesus arrived, but three key verses can once again tell us that this simply isn’t a valid deduction.

Matthew 5:7, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”.

Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail”.

Furthermore, as the New Testament instructions doesn’t even attempt to resolve the problems created by New Testament authors. Even if we allow the repeal of these old traditions, this act does not justify centuries of biblical oppression!

Schpankme

"There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation." (Epist. III, 8; p. 93.)

[Bodkins]

the bilble is a spell book for the elites to slipt the two halfs of the mind the aggresive side the male has been the game for a long time.
femine has been shot to bits

its wqork like this

i love you (now mirror)you love i
all energy is dicharge
you say i love you and you take from lady/man the power of love to youself.

spell news as compass(mirror)

place on paper we write left to right pulling the femine into the aggresor.

east go to jerusalem, british business center and iland to boot..
that why the empire was so strong.
talk like a jedi and your words a good

dog god Y dog smart dog god

learn mona lise hands look.
masonlie

time on clockday
mona day start week no sunday start week
work time play fun

[ANTIQUER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANTIQUER View Post
Biblical Nonsense -- refuted
Women are never denigrated in the Bible.
You are correct -> you said "Women are never denigrated in the Bible";

No, I did not say that, although I agree with it. Once again please get what I say/ quote correct.

This is the same stuff you posted before, so it's obvious you did not read the link I gave you to Chapter 10 or the links they supplied to a more detailed discussion of each verse or topic.
Instead you continue to apply your own twisted interpretation/logic or Long's to whatever verse you choose. Do you even know the definition of denigrate?
Webster's Dictionary; "To cast aspersions on;defame." "From the French nigrare:to blacken."
Defame:" To injure or destroy the reputation
of by by libel or slander."

Here's a perfect example of twisting and interpreting a verse incorrectly, as you posted;

3) Deuteronomy 22:13-21, A man can attempt to have his wife killed by claiming that she lost her virginity prior to their marriage. Following this accusation, the woman must provide physical evidence, such as a bloodstain, to prove her innocence of this “crime”. If evidence exonerates the woman, the accuser is fined a couple pounds of silver and forced to stay married until death.

Here are the actual verses(Have you ever read them or is this someone else's opinion) which are noted in my Schofield Edition of the KJV as "The innocent wife protected";

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say , I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying , I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

Nothing there about having her killed. Matter of fact he is attempting to denigrate her reputation. Her family defends her before the elders (judges) of the city. They apparently get the bedsheets from the marriage bed as proof of her virginity, although that is not exactly specified (tokens?). But why not, judges require proof, not hearsay. So they prove their case and the dishonest husband is whipped (chastised), heavily fined, and made to remain in the marriage, perhaps the worst part of the sentence.

Your statement;

1 Corinthians 11:5-7, Paul establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads or shaven them. Later, Paul declares a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering.

As you seem to have trouble understanding the Old English grammar in the KJV, here is I Cor. 11:3-16 from the Amplified Bible;

3But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.

4Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ).

5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.

6For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].

7For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God [[a]his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man's glory (majesty, preeminence).(A)

8For man was not [created] from woman, but woman from man;(B)

9Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.(C)

10[b]Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, [c]that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].

11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;

12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].

13Consider for yourselves; is it proper and decent [according to your customs] for a woman to offer prayer to God [publicly] with her head uncovered?

14Does not [d]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,

15But if a woman has long hair, it is her ornament and glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.

That explains it pretty well. Covering her head is a sign of respect to her husband, and through him to God. Verse 10 shows that clearly; the angels do not show reverence to men but to God. Also, her hair is her covering, but she can use a hat or a shawl, whatever the custom. That's why most women in our churches don't cover their head.
As for the wife being in subjection, that is simply a chain of command, which every household needs, just as a ship needs a captain. Children are also told to be obedient to their father; is that denigration? In verse 3 it says Christ is the Head of every man. Is that denigrating to men? I don't think so, and nothing about abusing anybody.

If you really want answers to the other verses read the links I supplied, they are all there. I am through on this subject.

Many Christians have declared that the Old Testament regulations died when Jesus arrived, but three key verses can once again tell us that this simply isn’t a valid deduction.

Matthew 5:7, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”.

Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail”.

I'll get back to this as soon as I can, I'm pretty busy with Easter right now.

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Aaron;

I have begun to watch "The Naked Truth".

By sheer coincidence I saw part of this video late this p.m. It addresses much of what is talked about in the first 20 minutes of "The Naked Truth" and more.

Jesus & The Gospels: Answers to Tough Questions, Part I - Day of Discovery

I think you will find it very interesting, esp. the parts about historical proofs of biblical accuracy by real authorities using secular sources, some of whom were enemies of the Christians and considered them equal to sewage. It's in 2 parts; total time only 1 hour.


Al

[Aaron]

part 1

Thanks Al,

Just watched part 1. It is interesting - to me, they seem as biased
towards the commonly held view of Jesus as Jordan Maxwell is against
it. In any case, I enjoyed part 1 and will watch part 2 maybe tomorrow.

Can you point out to me where the historical evidence is that shows the
Canaanites premeditated the creation of the "Gospel of Judas" and
premeditated Judas's elevated status? I'm not arguing if they did or not,
the video discussed that but showed nothing to back it up.

It isn't uncommon for people to hear of the story that Judas "really
was in cahoots with Jesus to plan his own arrest and execution..."

I wouldn't say that Jordan Maxwell is not a "real" scholar because he isn't
mainstream and isn't backed by some university. Some of his claims are
stretches and speculation such as the creation of the word Israel and
Solomon. What he says may be true about that, but it is still just a
hypothesis. But many things he points out astrologically are very
factual as well as the parallels to Buddha, Krishna, etc...

What is your opinion of why Jesus' life story matches those that came
before him. I'm not trying to convince you that these other individuals
are on equal footing as the commonly believed Jesus, but there is as much
or more historical record for their existence so I'm not asking to compare
their significance - just what is your explanation of why all those people
mentioned that came before Jesus had virtually identical histories of
them being born of a virgin mother as well as all the other items?

But it is undeniable the parallel to all the other "God-like" men that came
before Jesus - or Yeshua, since the letter J is only about 500 years old.
Also, it is undeniable the parallel to the astrological points.

Do you personally think that those astrological points are just coincidences
or do you think it is more evidence to support the Jesus that most people
are familiar with?

Schpankme appears to believe it is more of just the astrological
connection that has been personified - he/she can verify that and you
seem to be more in the more commonly held view of Jesus side of things.
I'm not saying either is good or bad or whatever - just stating facts -
and my belief is that I think both are simultaneously correct to different
degrees - just to spell out my viewpoint. I think they
validate and give credit to each other instead of taking away from each
other.

[Schpankme]

Hi Dan.

The things you ask have been asked for centuries. Let's just deal with Eve and your "denigration of women" comment for now.

First, there is no description of what they ate (apple?) and it really doesn't matter. God told Adam not to eat from that tree. He was not "co-erced", he was tempted and gave in to it willingly. Whatever it was they ate it brought them out of the pure, sinless state they had existed in until then.
Their sin was disobedience and all involved were punished for it. Eve was punished by suffering sorrow in childbirth and losing her equality with Adam(he was now to rule over her) and she was to desire only him. Of course they were both banned from Eden.

That was the extent of her punishment. Women are never denigrated in the Bible. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved His Church and gave His life for it. They are told to take care of their wives and the rest of their family and the younger women and widows. Wives are told to love, respect and obey their husband. That is God's blueprint for the family. We would be a lot better off if more people followed it instead of a lot of these "so-called" modern ideas. They are just wedges used by Satan to drive families apart and destroy them.

I think I'll leave it there for now. Maybe Aaron can pick it up as to the rest of your questions or I will later, or both.

Al

Al,

Did you type the above post?

Did you say "Women are never denigrated in the Bible." ?

Schpankme