Happy New Year. Farewell to the forum, onwards to the future

So 2019 is here. Happy New Year to everyone.  The first act of 2019 has been to respect the outcome of the request for the forum to be saved or closed.  Everyone left on the forum was emailed to ask if it should continue, and a public request was made on here.  The response (albeit a silent one!) was not for it to be continued, (so unlike the UK government's refusal to respect the wishes of the people over Brexit, which have dragged on into a negation of those wishes), the wishes of the members of the forum have been implemented in full and the forum is no more!  It was a simple question - for the forum to remain and continue, or for it to 'leave' the internet, posts be deleted, members removed, and shut down in its entirety - so as 'leave' was the verdict, leave it has been.

The link to the former forum is:https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/newsfromatlantis/index.php. It is now a dead site, which is how it will stay until the tapatalk administrators remove it from their database. If only government would implement the popular vote of 2016, and get us out of the EU as promptly!

For anyone visiting the dead site , the only information is that anyone who wishes to see what it was about, can see a sample of the last posts at: https://newsfromatlantis.blogspot.com/search/label/From%20the%20Forum (or from here by clicking the label 'From the Forum'.)

So now that little bit of admin is dealt with, it is time to move on and get some fresh material out there.  So Happy New Year to you all, and best wishes for 2019.  With the Brexit debacle continuing, the EU becoming an almost open tyranny, the rise of identity politics to unimaginable levels of stupidity, this is sure to be an interesting year!!

33 Days to Save the Forum: It Will Close 31.12.18 - Unless You Want It To Stay

The Forum has now been inactive for over a year.  At its height, there were roughly 200 members.  As can be seen by the screenshot above, the number of views for some posts was very high.  The top viewing score of 14,576 was not the highest of all the posts!  The phoenix forum posted as a collection of the last parts of the forum which were in any way salvageable, really isn't representative of what the forum was.

The forum at its peak had the following:

• c. 200 Members
• Hundreds of topics
• Hundred of Thousands of Views
• Vast numbers of replies and an intensive exchange of ideas.

So what went wrong?

I wanted a forum of total freedom, with no censorship at all.  So I allowed anyone to join, and the posting of absolutely anything.  This was good to begin with, but a few 'bad apples' took advantage and posted material which was absolutely outrageous.  I had no choice but to ban them and to bring in rules forbidding anything which was sick - such as porn.

The forum became a gathering place of people with common ideals.  This should have allowed for an exchange of ideas and for people to come into contact with thoughts that they had not previously.  But what actually happened was that people grouped together and went hunting after 'heretics' (political, religious, conspiratorial etc), and to combat this I had to create Admins to keep an eye on things.

What happened next is the Admins purged the forum of people who posted too often and who could be considered spammers.  This approach saw people not advised to stay on topic, or to keep to certain sub-forums (such as music), but simply banned and blocked.  The purges removed posts as well as people, so discussions became senseless as whole swathes of material vanished.

The Admins revised their own posts, again cutting out lots of text, making the forum even more unusable.

I held to my belief that this turbulence would settle, but it continued, with membership collapsing, discussions turning into sermons, with heretics hounded and removed.

This has been an education to me.  A totally anarchic forum was abused, so rules had to be put in place. These rules had to be enforced, but they were used as an excuse to control debate.  I sat back and let things progress, without interfering, and I can now see that this naivety was an abject failing on my behalf, and that my refusal to take responsibility was the cause of the demise of the forum.  My apologies to everyone who joined and who contributed, but who I let down by my hippy-like belief that all I had to do was create a space for open debate and that it would naturally be a nice place for everyone.  Anarchy in theory, in practice became chaos, then tyranny, then nothing.

So what next?

I am leaving the forum as it is, until the end of the year.  It will remain at the following link:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/newsfromatlantis/index.php

If people want to join, there will only be one admin - me - and there will be no tolerance of people ganging up to stifle debate.  I suspect that it is beyond repair, and if this is so, on the 31st December, it will be deleted.  The salvaged posts will be accessible on here at the following link:

https://newsfromatlantis.blogspot.com/search/label/From%20the%20Forum

You can vote by either choosing to get active, or by staying silent.  If it arises like a phoenix from the flames then I look forward to debating with you.  Otherwise it will be put out of its misery and will serve as a lesson that not taking responsibility is not an exercise in freedom, but a failure to keep freedom from dying.

Gratis...The last post, and the last word in the religious debate on the forum

Does Edam cheese come from the Edomites? It's not bad. Or maybe it came from the line of Seth and was originally called Setham Cheese before those fukers yeah those Edomites stole the recipe and killed every mother fucker. Dam those fukcre to hell. FUC I WANNA SPIRTUAL FIRCKING BLOOD BATH. WHERE DO I EFFING SIGN? 

Note" Ive tried to use the original 1512 Anglo Saxon syntax where appropriate (I've been studying the language for 3 decades, My Book "Where the Fuck did FucK Come From" can be down loaded for free + $79.95 for posting and handling yourself.) + I have a mild form of INTERNET turrets syndrome. I'm also dyslexic, yeah I can write with both hands.

Signed Shittaker. 

You I know I love you but please can you unregister from the mad house forget about the Edomites and trudge the road of happy destiny with me. Beaulah Land Sweet Beaulah land is where we are going.

Gratis: God Hates Chess from The Lost Book of the Effed in the Head

Finally the truth is revealed, last Thursday the day before Friday a group of anthropologists unearthed the ancient hidden scrolls of Tutankhamen under a pyramid. At last! Finally we can understand how the world really began

In the beginning, well actually it was forty days later, but you can’t have everything, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good, in fact He said it was good seven times which must means it was bloody good, bordering on absolutely fucking fantastic. During smoke-o God liked to relax with his angels – some of them soon to become demons, now how and why did that happen, well this is how. 

God hates chess, he's a backgammon guy, and you’re right, whoever gets the most assholes wins. Actually God is half man, half woman and half she goat. I forgot what the other half was, oh that’s right it’s a cross between a dolphin and a kangaroo. These creatures existed until Adam and eve ate them all because apparently they where bloody delicious especially barbecued and washed down with a few cold ones, they taste a bit like fried chicken but ten times nicer. Do not blame Adam and Eve that there’s none left, you would have eaten them all too if you where them. 

Actually, scientists have discovered that such an animal existed some 98 trillion years BC and that Michael Phelps is directly descended from a pod of dope smoking dolphins which originated in a small pool North West of Equatorial Guinea in the late 18th century BC anodominoes. Another great game God loves dominoes, he’s wicked at it. Once Satan (god called him Stan then), beat him three nil so that’s when God said, and lo “Fuck this for a game of soldiers” and cast him out into outer darkness where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth and lots of “Fuck you god, I’m the Guvnor now!” from Lucy, later to be named Lucifur on account that she was very, very hirsute. Then God got hammered on the blood of a hundred and forty four thousand Jehovah’s witnesses and practiced nailing Jesus to the cross for fun whilst dancing up and down on his grave singing hallefuckingluelia until a gaggle of angels came in and said “Fuck this Father God, we haven’t had any sleep for ten million years; do you realize what fucken time it is?” And God, who liked to be called Katherine by his close friends, said “Thou shalt shut the fuck up! Don’t you know who I am? I AM that I AM just ask Stan, I don’t do time. 
I’m eternally on garden leave. I’d like to see what you could do in six days. Now; you lot can get the fuck out of here right now with Stan. 

It’s true you know, because the vibration in my sphincter muscle proves it to me. 
If you aren’t experiencing this tingling sensation in your sphincter muscle, don’t worry, it can be experienced by disappearing up your own arse.

Gratis: The Alien Con-spriracy

At the time of writing, on the evening news last night, the eminent scientist Steven Hawkings is reported to be almost definitely certain aliens exist. 

Apparently; this almost definite conclusion was arrived at via the employment of almost definite mathematical certainties. IE because there are billions of galaxies, each including billions of stars, then it is safe to assume there must almost definitely be aliens on at least one other planet. The spin is; we needn’t worry about the threat of this highly evolved alien species setting up shop on our planet to feed on our brains because it is almost definitely certain the odds of them picking us out of the billions of galaxies and billions of stars to choose from is almost definitely zero. Yeah right!

This is most untypical of the media to down play the almost certain pandemic mayhem about to be unleashed on the unsuspecting dumbed down sheeple of planet earth isn’t it? But this glaring inconsistency hasn’t gone unnoticed by the awakened chosen few (whose company I am proud but not boastful to consider myself among) And quite frankly it isn’t good enough for me so from this point on I’ve taken to permanently sporting a bicycle helmet and a necklace made of onions. I’m almost certain aliens will be repelled by the smell. (I read in a marvel comic, onions are quite smelly too.)

As a result my wife has left me (and kidnapped our son) because she is certain I have lost my mind? You see, when it comes to a belief in aliens my wife is one of those strange people who is atheist, not agnostic, atheist. I wish I had known that before we decided to start a family. 

I now find myself bedside myself with upset and worry because her denial (not the river in Egypt) and her obvious cognitive dissonance, in light of these earth endangering almost certain mathematical facts, presented by the genius giant mind of Hawkings, is now almost definitely plunging my child into almost certain danger. 

Folks; this is a risk that this father is not prepared to take. I am sure all people with an unbelieving spouse can understand exactly where I am coming form. On behalf of us all I hope to set a precedent in seeking a high court injunction to earn sole custody of my son because this out of character and erratic behaviour of my wife is exposing an innocent child to the lip smacking mandibles of an almost certain hungry alien invasion. 

Yes; we can be almost certain the alien invaders will be very hungry indeed, ravenous even, considering we are entitled to assume they have travelled a very great distant through deep empty space to get here. It’s going to be a veritable feeding frenzy folks and who is going to be the first to go? Exactly! Our unprotected young! 

I would personally like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Steven Hawkings for the courage and intestinal fortitude it has undoubtedly taken for a man of his scientific reputation to come out of the closet as a believer and offer himself up to be used as a puppet in the hands of the masters of illusion. I am close to tears because we believers have been marginalised and oppressed for centuries. Finally, we have the almost definite mathematical certainty that vindicates us all. May the fourth, I beg your pardon that’s my wife’s birthday, May the force be with you Steven Hawkings. Kia Kaha Brother. 

Yours sincerely – Kook Liewalker

PS: If anyone or anything has a copy of Star Trek episode 77 (its’ the one where Captain James T Kirk was battling homosexual fantasies ignited by Spock’s extra tight fitting ly-cra dungarees (only ever worn in this episode) please, please contact me on kook@ifoundmyselfbesidemyself.con

Gratis: 1 Peter 2:2 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582

by brandplucked » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:25 am
1 Peter 2:2 and the Vatican Versions - "desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby."


King James Bible 1611 - “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby.”

ESV 2001 - “Like newborn infants, long for the pure SPIRITUAL milk, that by it you may grow UP INTO SALVATION.” - εἰς σωτηρίαν

NASB 1995 - “like newborn babies, long for the pure milk OF THE WORD, so that by it you may grow IN RESPECT TO SALVATION.”

NIV 2011 - “ Like newborn babies, crave pure SPIRITUAL milk, so that by it you may grow UP IN YOUR SALVATION.”

RSV 1952 - “ Like newborn babes, long for the pure SPIRITUAL milk, that by it you may grow UP TO SALVATION.”

Darby 1890 - “ as newborn babes desire earnestly the pure MENTAL milk OF THE WORD, that by it ye may grow UP TO SALVATION.”

Bible in Basic English 1961 - ”Be full of desire for the true milk OF THE WORD, as babies at their mothers' breasts, SO THAT YOU MAY GO ON TO SALVATION.”


Dan Wallace’s NET version - “And yearn like newborn infants for pure, SPIRITUAL, so that by it you may grow UP TO SALVATION.”

Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 - “as newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated mile BELONGING TO THE WORD, that through it you may GROW TO SALVATION.”

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 - “As newborn babes, desire the RATIONAL milk without guile, that thereby you may GROW UNTO SALVATION.”
Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - “Be as eager for milk as newborn babies - pure milk OF THE SPIRIT to make you GROW UNTO SALVATION.”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “Like new-born babies all your longing should be for mild - the unadulterated SPIRITUAL milk - which will help you GROW UP TO SALVATION.”

There are two main areas of concern regarding this verse. One has to do with translation and the other is textual. You will notice that the King James Bible and even some of the ever changing Critical Text versions make reference to “the milk of THE WORD” (NASB, BBE, Darby, CEB). It is the written words of God that He has provided as our spiritual food for our proper growth into the maturity of being conformed more and more to the image of Christ our Saviour.

As our own Lord said in Matthew 4:4 “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

However in many of these modern Vatican Versions (and that is exactly what versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET are - See http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm ) and in ALL of the Catholic versions there is no longer any reference to “the milk OF THE WORD”, but rather to something far more vague, nebulous and open to a wide variety of interpretations like “spiritual milk”. (NIV, ESV, NET, RSV)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment on this phrase - "of the word--Not as ALFORD, "spiritual," nor "reasonable," as English Version in Ro 12:1. The Greek "logos" in Scripture is not used of the reason, or mind, but of the WORD; the preceding context requires that "the word" should be meant here."

John Wesley comments: "The milk of the word - That word of God which nourishes the soul as milk does the body, and which is sincere, pure from all guile, so that none are deceived who cleave to it."

The second issue of even more theological importance is a textual one. ALL the Catholic bible versions and today’s critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. ADD the words “TO SALVATION” - εἰς σωτηρίαν - to the Traditional Greek text that was used for the Reformation Bibles in a multitude of foreign languages. And these additional words “that you may grow UP TO (or INTO, or TO) SALVATION fit perfectly with Catholic doctrine whereby salvation is viewed as an ongoing process one can never be sure of and is never taught as an accomplished fact because of what Jesus Christ has already done for His people.

The reading found in the King James Bible that omits those additional words “into salvation” is that of the Majority of all Greek texts and is also the textual reading found in Tyndale 1535, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “As newe borne babes desire that sincere milke of the woorde, that yee may growe thereby”, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation 1755 - “As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”, 1770 John Worsley N.T., Webster’s Bible 1833, 1869 Noyes Translation, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot English Text, Youngs, the Hebrew Names Bible, the NKJV 1982, Green’s literal 2000 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Among foreign language Bibles that read like the King James Bible without adding “into salvation” are the following: the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 "pur afin que vous croissiez par lui.", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Milch des Wortes" = "milk of the word", the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the 2009 Romaina Fidela Bible, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati of 1991 - "il latte puro della parola, acciocchè per esso cresciate." = "the pure milk of the word that by it you might grow.", the Africaans Bible (South Africa) 1953 - "melk van die woord, dat julle daardeur kan opgroei" = "the milk of the word, that you may grow", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Polish Biblia Gdanska, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1865 and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010 - "desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche no adulterada de la palabra, para que por ella crezcáis" = "desire the unadulterated milk of the word", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "para que por ele vades crescendo", the Modern Greek, Stephanus 1550, Beza, Elziever 1624, Scrivener 1894 - "επιποθησατε ως νεογεννητα βρεφη το λογικον αδολον γαλα, δια να αυξηθητε δι' αυτου"

The reading of the King James Bible is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts, but the addition of the words "grow up TO SALVATION εἰς σωτηρίαν is found in P72, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and C. This may sound impressive until we begin to examine more closely these Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and begin to see that they not only disagree with the Textus Receptus and the Majority of all Greek copies, but they are in constant disagreement with each other!

At this point I would like to note just SOME of the examples in this short epistle of 1 Peter where all five of these Greek manuscripts disagree with each other and how the Nestle Aland, UBS Greek critical text itself continues to change. In 1 Peter 1:4 where it says this inheritance is reserved in heaven for YOU, P72 says "for US". In 1:6 where it says "If need BE, ye are in heaviness" - εἰ δέον ἐστίν - the verb ἐστίν is omitted by Sinaiticus original and Vaticanus, but is found in the others and Sinaiticus correction added it again. The previous Nestle critical text omitted the verb, but now they have put it back in the text.

In 1:8 it says: "Whom having not SEEN" is the reading of the TR and these others, except A which says "having not KNOWN". In 1:9 where it says "receiving the end of YOUR faith", Vaticanus omits the word "YOUR", but it is found in the others. In 1:16 where it says "for I am holy" - ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός εἰμι" both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the verb εἰμι and so did the earlier Nestle text, but it is found in P72, A correction and C and now the Nestle text has put it back in!

In 1:21 where it says "who by him DO BELIEVE in God" the Majority as well as P72, Sinaiticus and C all have a verb -πιστεύοντας εἰς θεόν, but Vaticanus and A have an adjective meaning "faithful" - πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν. In 1:22 where it says "love one another with a PURE heart" - ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, the word pure καθαρᾶς is found in the Majority, P72, Sinaiticus and C but is omitted by Vaticanus and A. The earlier Nestle critical text omitted the word, but now they have put it back in the text! To this day among the Critical Text editions the RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB and Common English Bible still omit the word "pure" but the ESV, NET, ISV and Holman put it in. In 1:25 where it says "And this is THE WORD which by the gospel is preached unto you" manuscript A omits "the word" τὸ ῥῆμα.

In 1 Peter 2:1 we read in the list of sins the word "ENVIES" φθόνους, but Vaticanus alone says "MURDERS" φόνους, and where all the others read "HYPOCRISIES" plural - ὑποκρίσεις - Sinaiticus alone reads "hypocrisy" singular - ὑπόκρισιν. In 2:3 where it says "the Lord is GRACIOUS" -χρηστὸς - P72 says "the Lord is CHRIST" - Χριστός. And in 2:24 where it says: "Who his own self bare OUR - ἡμῶν- sins in his own body" P72 and Vaticanus say "bare YOUR sins in his own body" - ὑμῶν.

In 1 Peter 3:16 it says "whereas they speak evil OF YOU AS OF EVILDOERS" - ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν - These words are in the Majority of all manuscripts, the TR and in Sinaiticus, A and C, but P72 and Vaticanus omit them and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman and the Catholic versions as well.

In 1 Peter 4:1 where it says "Christ hath suffered FOR US in the flesh" - ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν - these words are in the Majority of mss., the TR and in Sinaiticus correction and A, but are omitted by Vaticanus, P72 and C and by the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman and the Catholic versions. In 4:3 where it says "For the time past of our life may suffice US to have wrought the will of the Gentiles" Sinaiticus says "YOU", while C has US and Vaticanus, P72 and A omit the word altogether. In 4:8 where it says "love SHALL COVER a multitude of sins" (future tense - καλύψει) - is the reading in the Majority of all mss., the TR and in P72 and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus and A say "love COVERS a multitude of sins" (present tense - καλύπτει )- and so do the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET and all Catholic versions. In 4:19 we read: "commit the keeping of THEIR souls to him in well doing" but Vaticanus alone omits this word "their" but it is found in the others.

In 1 Peter 5:2 we read: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, TAKING THE OVERSIGHT THEREOF" - ἐπισκοποῦντες. This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts, the TR, Sinaiticus correction, P72 and A. However Vaticanus omits it and so did Westcott and Hort as well as the earlier Nestle critical text. But now they have added this reading back into their more recent Nestle text. However it gets even stranger. Sinaiticus, P72 and A all contain two extra words that are not found in the others including Vaticanus. These extra words are found now in the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman where they say: "exercising oversight, not by compulsion but willingly AS GOD WOULD HAVE YOU."

These extra words are κατὰ θεόν and literally mean "according to God". These extra words were not found in Westcott and Hort nor the Majority nor the TR nor even in Vaticanus, but they are found in P72, Sinaiticus and A. Westcott and Hort originally had "but willingly" - ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως- but the Nestle texts later added - ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν - and that is how the modern critical text reads. The critical text RSV did not adopt this reading nor did the critical text Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902 and the recent Amplified of 1987 has now dropped it, but these others still have it in their texts, but usually accompanied with a footnote - "Some manuscripts omit 'as God would have you'" (ESV). The earlier Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 did NOT include this reading, but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem do.

In 1 Peter 5:8 we read: "as a roaring lion walketh about seeking WHOM - τίνα - he may devour." This little word "whom" (τίνα) is omitted by Vaticanus, but found in the others. Westcott and Hort originally omitted it from their text, but later on Nestle put it back in with NO brackets and then later on Nestle [bracketed] it again.

In 5:10 we read: "who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ JESUS." - ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. This is the reading in the Majority of all texts, the TR and in P72 and A, but Vaticanus and Sinaitcus omit the word JESUS - ἐν Χριστῷ. Westcott and Hort originally omitted the word JESUS and so did the earlier Nestle critical text, but now they have put the word back in their texts [but in brackets]. Among the critical text versions the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and NET still continue to omit the name JESUS but the Holman Standard and the new ISV 2012 now put it back in!

We see the same pattern among the other Vatican Versions in that the previous Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay of 1950 read "Christ JESUS", but then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem of 1985 omitted the name of JESUS. Oh, but wait a minute. They are not done yet. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and they put the name of Jesus back in their text and now it reads "called us to his eternal glory in Christ JESUS" once again!

In 1 Peter 5:11 we read: "To him be GLORY and dominion for ever AND EVER. Amen." = Αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. This is the reading of the Majority of all manuscripts and that of Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus, P72 and A omit the words "GLORY" - ἡ δόξα - , and Sinaiticus and A include the words that make up "AND EVER" - τῶν αἰώνων -, but Vaticanus and P72 omit them.

And finally when we get to 1 Peter 5:14 we read: "Peace be with you all that are in Christ JESUS. AMEN." Here the name JESUS as well as AMEN are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, while Vaticanus and A omit both "Jesus" and "Amen" and P72 omits ALL eight Greek words entirely - the whole phrase!

If you are using one of these new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman etc. then you will never be sure of what they will come up with next in their efforts to evolve, change, modify and develop their "interconfessional" text put together by Catholic and Evangelical scholars. They will continue to alter and tamper with the text, and if they ever got it right, then they would be out of a job.

This "$cholar$ game the bible agnostics refer to as the "science" of textual criticism is indeed a Wonder to behold. It's a Wonder what they will come up with next.

All of grace, believing The Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney


Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

The difference in this one verse is astonishing. And this proves, beyond cavil, the Douay Rheims to be utter heresy. FACT!

Gratis: SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE

Between 1525-1611 A.D. six Major English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, The Great, Geneva, and The Bishops) were produced - all of which were based on the Greek Text known as the Byzantine Text (now known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus) in the New Testament, and the Hebrew Text (known as the Massoretic Text) in the Old Testament. 

William Tyndale completed translating the New Testament and most of the Old Testament before he was murdered by the government (strangled to death and then burned). The Coverdale Bible was the first complete Bible in English based on a ‘Greek Text’ in the New Testament, and a Hebrew Text in the Old Testament. John Wycliffe’s earlier English Translation (1382 A.D.) was based on some of the Old Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate, and was ‘revised’ by John Purvey to bring it more in line with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Matthew’s Bible was a combination of the best from Tyndale and Coverdale. The Great Bible was a Revision of Matthew’s. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritan’s (and was the most popular Bible with the common people until the AV1611 - KJB). The Bishop’s Bible was an “Official” Bible put out by the Church of England in an attempt to replace the popular Geneva (which it never did).

Six English Bibles produced in approximately 85 years, and then the crowning achievement: The AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611 A.D.), The Seventh! What did God say in Psalms 12:6-7? 

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The King James Bible was the seventh English Bible, and it was translated in seven years. Do you think that’s just a coincidence? Think about that for a while!

From 1611 through the 1930’s the Bible that is now called the King James Bible was simply known as “The Holy Bible”. In the 1700’s a few of its critics (scholars) began to call it the “Authorized Version” (hence the name “AV 1611”), and by the 1800’s most Bible scholars and critics referred to “The Holy Bible” as the “Authorized Version”. 

The only changes that that have taken place within the AV1611 [The King James Bible] from 1611 up to the 1940’s were:

1. Corrections of typographical errors (1629)

2. Standardization of the language (i.e. changes in spelling and punctuation: Final - 1769)

3. Regularization (e.g. consistent use of italics, etc. - 1769) 

There were NO CHANGES, or ADDITIONS, or SUBTRACTIONS TO THE TEXT {i.e. WORDS}!

Up until the middle of the 20th century no Publisher ever dared to CHANGE THE TEXT of “The Holy Bible”, although they started to produce multiple versions in English from a handful of inferior (corrupt) Greek & Hebrew manuscripts, very different from the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts from which the King James Bible was translated.

The "HOLY BIBLE" (now known as the AV1611 or The King James Bible) was THE STANDARD BIBLE of the English speaking people of the world from the early 1600’s up until the early 1900’s. It was the FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith and practice amongst nearly all English speaking Christians for over 300 years. During that entire period of time no other “bible” even came close to challenging its authoritative position.

Sometime after the introduction of the “new” English Translations (“The “Revised Version” of 1881 in England, and “The American Standard Version” of 1901 in America – both of which failed miserably) the Publishers of the “new” Translations began to call "The Holy Bible" (AV1611) - “The King James Version”. And since the 1950’s these Publishers have gradually (under the cover of “helps” and “clarification”) been introducing more and more CHANGES, either to the actual TEXT (the words) of the King James Bible, or by the subtle introduction of suggestions (always from “bible scholars”) implying that there are errors in the TEXT of the King James Bible, and supplying different words other than those in the text, or stating that certain words or verses do not belong in the text.

Since the introduction of the failed Revised Version (1881 - 1885) and the failed American Standard Version (1901), there have been over 120 “versions” of the “bible” (in English) that have come out on the market - $$$ (An unenviable “record” - unmatched in any ten (10) other languages in the world!) It is now to the point, that with very few exceptions, most people have no idea WHERE the words of God are, or WHAT the words of God say. The confusion is nearly complete, and that is why when I buy a King James Bible I make every effort to insure that it is indeed a genuine KING JAMES BIBLE, and NOT some “KNOCK-OFF”, pretending to be a King James Bible – like the NEW Scofield Bible; or the NEW King James Bible; or the numerous “Study” King James Bibles with “corrections” on every page. 

The Holy Bible is unlike any other book on earth. According to its own testimony it contains “the words of eternal life” [John 6:63, 68]; it makes the astounding claim to have been “given by inspiration of God” [2 Timothy 3:16]; it also says that God will preserve His words [Psalms 12:6-7] Jesus said that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” [Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33] Because of this testimony, and many others, the words within the Bible are not to be tampered with. Within the pages of the Bible God commands men NOT to CHANGE His words. We are commanded NOT to ADD to them, NOR are we to SUBTRACT from them [Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5; Revelation 22:18-19] All 120 “New” bibles (in English) available today do all three!



SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE BIBLE

#1. THE BIBLE {The "Books"} = SCRIPTURES = WRITINGS 
There are well over 12,000 manuscripts in at least a dozen languages (over 5,500 Greek mss in the New Testament alone) to prove the existence of the Bible. No other book in existence has near that amount of existing manuscripts extending over such a long period of time.

#2. THE BIBLE IS THE OLDEST BOOK {In Continuous Use} IN THE WORLD
The Bible has been in continuous use (approximately 3,500 years) since books were first written.

#3. THE BIBLE IS BY FAR THE MOST {Continuously} POPULAR BOOK IN THE WORLD
The Bible is the most widely read book ever published.

#4. THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY BOOK: 
The Bible is the only book with a clear, understandable, and truthful record of the creation; the great flood; history; and end of the world.

#5. THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY BOOK: 
That gives mankind a reason for living. [1 Corinthians 6:20; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:5]

#6. THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY BOOK: 
That can solve the riddle of the crazy days we are living in today. [2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3: 1-13, 4:3-4, 2 Peter 2:1-22, 3:1-7, Jude 17-19]

#7. THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY BOOK: 
To accurately foretell the future in detail and never have a single prophecy fail. 

Christ’s 1st. Coming: [Isaiah 7:14, 40:3-5; Micah 5:2; Jeremiah; 31:15; Malachi 3:1]

Israel’s Rebirth: (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Hosea 9:10; Joel 1:7; Matthew 24:32-34; Mark. 13:28-30,; Luke 21:29-32]

Christ’s 2nd. Coming: [Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:1-38,; Acts 1:9 -11, 3:18-21; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; 1Thessalonians 4:13-18, 5:1-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12]
{There are over 1,000 prophecies in The Holy Bible – Most still to come}

#8. THE BIBLE - WRITTEN ENTIRELY BY JEWS 
{Luke, the physician being the only possible exception} [Deuteronomy 8:3, 30:10-14, 32:1-4; Isaiah 45:23, 55:10-11; Ezekiel 3:10; Romans 3:1-2]


The Holy Bible = AV1611 = The King James Bible
The Holy Bible has 66 Books. {39 Books – Old Testament & 27 Books – New Testament}

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON {Canon = a measuring rod or rule.}

The Old Testament Canon is the Jewish Standard for the Scriptures and simply means that these are all the Books of Scripture that the Jews recognized and accepted as being The Holy Word of God at the time of Christ’s first coming. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT = 39 Books
The Jews divided their Scriptures (the Christian’s “Old Testament”) into 3 Sections: THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, & THE WRITINGS

THE BOOKS OF THE LAW 
The Five Books of The Law - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy
The Law was given to Moses [Exodus 24: 3-4; 12]
The Law was written by Moses [Deuteronomy 31:24; Mark 2:26; John 5:46; John 7:19]

After Moses wrote The Law, what happened to these writings? 

THE LAW WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE PRIESTS [Deuteronomy 31:1-13; Deuteronomy 31: 24-26]
{The Priests (from the tribe of Levi) were given the responsibility for Copying and Preserving the “Oracles of God, i.e. The Scriptures}


THE BOOKS KNOWN AS THE PROPHETS
Written by the men who held the official Office of Prophet to Israel.

A Prophet was a man from the Nation of Israel, called by God to serve Him, who worked in the Jewish Nation {preaching, prophesizing, warning, admonishing, reproving, and rebuking}. Either he or his scribe wrote a record of his ministry to Israel. 

The Books called The Prophets were divided into two sections:

THE FORMER PROPHETS - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings

THE LATTER PROPHETS - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi


THE BOOKS KNOWN AS THE WRITINGS

The Books of the Writings were written by men who were inspired by God, but did not hold the position or Office of Prophet. David and Solomon were inspired, but they were Kings. Job, though inspired, was not a prophet. Even Daniel, who prophesied, and whom we (Christians) hold to be a Prophet, did not labor among the Nation of Israel as the Prophets did before and after him.

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles

THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, & THE WRITINGS make up what we (Christians) call:

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON {Canon = a measuring rod or rule}


NEW TESTAMENT = NEW COVENANT {27 Books}
{NEW TESTAMENT CANON - Canon = a measuring rod or rule}

While the Old Testament took over 1500 years to write, The New Testament was written in approximately 60 years. It has been said that:

“The New is in the Old contained, while the Old is by the New explained.”

And again:

“The New is in the Old concealed, while the Old is by the New revealed.”

When a comparison is made between the two Testaments we discover some amazing similarities between the first three chapters of Genesis and the last three chapters of Revelation.

OLD TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT
(Begins) (Ends)

In a Garden In a Garden

First Creation A “New” Creation 

Paradise – Lost Paradise - Restored

Promise of a Redeemer Redemption Perfected 

Tree 0f Life – Fruit NOT to be eaten Tree of Life – Fruit to be eaten

The Devil Victorious The Devil Vanquished

Sorrow, Sin, Sickness, “No more death, neither sorrow 
Crying, Pain, and nor crying, neither shall there 
Death be any pain: . . .” [Revelation 21:4]

Man & Woman Men and Women welcomed 
Driven Out by GOD as Children!

The Bible clearly reveals that it will be GOD that will Restore All Things – NOT Man!


Who wrote the New Testament? {Only Eight Men}

The Men The Books

Matthew [Matthew]

Mark [Mark]

Luke [Luke & Acts - Possibly the only Gentile to write Scripture]

John [John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John & Revelation]

James [James]

Peter [1 Peter & 2 Peter]

Jude [Jude]

Paul [Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1Thessalonians, 2Thessalonians,
1Timothy, 2Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and possibly Hebrews]


A SHORT "SYNOPSIS" OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
The Four Gospels reveal the 4-fold earthly ministry of The Lord Jesus Christ as:

MATTHEW MARK LUKE JOHN
Presents Christ as Presents Christ as Presents Christ as Presents Christ as 
The King The Servant The Man GOD 
[Jeremiah 23:5-6] [Zechariah 3:8] [Zechariah 6:12] [Isaiah 4:2]

Outside of the Four Gospels, the rest of the New Testament is simply a {God "Inspired"} commentary on the Lord Jesus Christ’s MINISTRY: His Ministry here on earth (His Life; His Death; His Resurrection); His Ministry since the Resurrection; His Relationship to the church and to the believer; and His promised triumphal Return to rule the world. The Books of Acts, The Epistles, and Revelation were written to explain WHY the Lord Jesus Christ came; WHY He did WHAT He did; and WHY and HOW He is coming back to set up His Kingdom. 

Not until God called the Apostle Paul and revealed His perfect will to him (the “mysteries of God" – 1Corinthians 4:1), did men know the full meaning of the Lord Jesus Christ’s Death; His Shed Blood; and His Resurrection (known as “The Atonement”). 



QUESTIONS ABOUT CHAPTERS & VERSES IN THE BIBLE

#1. Was the Bible written with chapters and verses already? 

#2. Who divided the Bible into chapters and verses? 

#3. Why are some verses from the Old Testament quoted slightly different in the New Testament? 

Answer to #1. The books which compose our Bible were, when first written, not broken up into chapters and verses, as they are today. Each book was separate and the letters ran together continuously throughout the book. At first the words were written without spaces between them; then came spaces at certain intervals to indicate a pause; then came spaces between words and a dot to indicate a pause; then came, in succession, commas, colons, interrogation points, and systematic punctuation. Accents and breathing were introduced in about the 7th or 8th century, and were perfected gradually with the use of the minuscule text.

Answer to #2. Old Testament: The division into verses is believed to be quite early and can be traced back to the early centuries of church history. The standard division of the Old Testament into verses which has come down to our own day was fixed by the Massoretic family of Ben Ashur about 900 A.D. This Hebrew text is known as the "Massoretic" text and is the Hebrew text that was the basis of the Authorized Version, now known as the King James Bible.

Answer to #2. New Testament: Very early in church history New Testament manuscripts were divided into sections, or paragraphs. These sections were usually much smaller than our chapters and larger than our verses. Sometime before 1228 Stephen Langdon, at one time - archbishop of Canterbury, divided the Bible into chapters. Modern chapter divisions were introduced into the Latin Vulgate in 1456, and into the Greek Testaments ("Textus Receptus") from 1516 onward. The modern verse divisions were first made by Robert Stephannus (Stephens) of Paris, a printer, who divided the New Testament into verses for the 4th edition of his Greek Testament. The first entire Bible in which these chapter and verse divisions were used was Stephen's edition of the Latin Vulgate (1555). The first English Bible to have both the chapter and verse divisions was the Geneva Bible (1560, the Pilgrim's Bible) which was the immediate predecessor to the Authorized Version (1611), now known as the King James Bible.

It should be noted that the chapter and verse divisions are convenient for reference and quotation purposes, but I do not believe that they are "inspired" as the words of the Bible are.
(This information and much more can be found in: "General Biblical Introduction" by H. S. Miller or "The Books and the Parchments" by F. F. Bruce.)

Answer to #3. This is the most difficult question to answer, but I will try: Since God is the author of all of the Holy Scriptures: 

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I believe that He has the right, as any author does, to quote His words in any way that He so chooses. {I do this with my writings all of the time.}

Please note that the men who wrote the New Testament were "inspired" of God to write the words (which continued to retain the original “inspiration”) and make quotations under the Holy Spirit's guiding, and that it was God who led them to quote passages out of the Old Testament as they did. Although there may be minor differences between an Old Testament passage and the New Testament quote of that passage, God never omits any words of import, unlike the modern English translations that have numerous word changes, omissions, and additions, not to mention various places where whole verses are missing.


IN REGARDS TO YE, YOU & THEE, THOU, THY, THINE

The use of the pronouns YE, you (plural) and thee, thou, thy, thine (singular) in the King James Bible greatly helps a believer in “rightly dividing the word of truth”. For instance: The King James Bible translators never used the word YE in the singular case. Every time the word YE show’s up in the King James Bible, it is always used to denote a plural pronoun (in reference to - more than one person). 
“YE, pronoun. The nominative plural of the second person, of which thou is the singular. But the two words have no radical connection. Ye is now used only in the sacred and solemn style. In common discourse and writing, you is exclusively used. But YE are washed, but YE are sanctified. 1 CORINTHIANS 6.” 

YOU, pronoun Yu. You has been considered as in the plural only, and is so treated in the Saxon grammar. But from the Belgic dialect, it appears to be in the singular as well as the plural, and our universal popular usage, in applying it to a single person with a verb in the singular number, is correct. Yourself is in the singular number. 1. The pronoun of the second person, in the nominative or objective case. In familiar language, it is applied to an individual, as thou is in the solemn style. In the plural, it is used in the solemn style in the objective case. He that despiseth you, despiseth me. Luke 10. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

And again in reference to the words thee, thou, thy, thine (singular) – The King James Bible translators always used these words in the singular case (in reference to a single person or nation, etc.). Knowing the distinction between thee, thou, thy, thine (singular) and YE, you (plural) helps the Bible believer to distinguish WHO is being addressed. 

THOU, pron. in the obj. thee. The second personal pronoun, in the singular number; the pronoun which is used in addressing persons in the solemn style.

Art thou he that should come? Matthew 11.
I will fear no evil, for thou art with me. Psalms 23.

Thou is used only in the solemn style, unless in very familiar language, and by the Quakers.
THOU, v.t. To treat with familiarity.

If thou thouest him some thrice, it shall not be amiss.

THOU, v.i. To use thou and thee in discourse.

THEE, pron. obj. case of thou.

THEE, v.i. To thrive; to prosper.

THINE, pronominal adj. Thy; belonging to thee; relating to thee; being the property of thee. It was formerly used for thy, before a vowel.

Then thou mightest eat grapes thy fill, at thine own pleasure. Deuteronomy 32.

But in common usage, thy is now used before a vowel in all cases.

The principal use of thine now is when a verb is interposed between this word and the noun to which it refers. I will not take any thing that is thine. Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.
In the following passage, thine is used as a substitute for thy righteousness.

I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only. Psalms 71.

In some cases, it is preceded by the sign of the possessive case, like nouns, and is then also to be considered as a substitute.

If any of thine be driven out to the utmost parts of heaven - Deuteronomy 30.

It is to be observed that thine, like thou, is used only in the solemn style. In familiar and common language, your and yours are always used in the singular number as well as the plural.

THY, a. contracted from thine, or from some other derivative of thou. It is probable that the pronoun was originally thig, thug or thuk, and the adjective thigen. See Thou.

Thy is the adjective of thou, or a pronominal adjective, signifying of thee, or belonging to thee, like tuus in Latin. It is used in the solemn and grave style.

These are thy works, parent of good. *

Here is a bit o good old biblical doctrine for you [British Israelers] from the Jew you deny is a Jew. 

Rom 3:1¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: (sound like you guys who want to wipe people out huh?)
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, , at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 ¶ Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only?is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.