|
Post by Dave on Dec 14, 2021 15:56:54 GMT -5
The entire point of my ministry is to teach the Reality of the ArchonWHY? - Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (ARCHON), against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Who are the ARCHONRev 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: a great fiery red dragon that had seven heads and ten horns, and seven royal crowns on his heads. Rev 12:4 His tail sweeps away a third of the stars of heaven—it hurled them to the earth. Now the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that whenever she gave birth he might devour her child. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down—the ancient serpent, called the devil and satan, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Rev 12:17 So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the rest of her offspring—those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua. The ARCON = the Beast of Revelation – the serpent race – known as devils and NT satanRobert and Dave have a disagreement about the origin of the BeastDave says – the Beast was cast to earth – all of the earth – the Beast is everywhere Robert claims that satan is only a Hebrew angels – for the Hebrews onlyDave says – scripture says the Beast just appeared – as in a by-product of creation / inherent to creationRobert says – Hebrew satan was God closest and most beloved friend – who then turned against God and changed all of God’s creation against God’s Will Dave says – the Beast and his ARCHON were the 33 ‘other gods’ of the ahl – in fact these same ‘other gods’ archon of the ahl are also the ‘other gods’ of the entire planet – all the cultures of the world Robert – will not commit to the existence of ‘other gods’ – myth Robert - will not comment on the ‘other gods’ of history – Rome – Asia – Americas – all of it myth Robert – will not even look at the possibility that Allah is just the supreme leader – more myth So I am curious to know how Robert could possibly fit this video into his Roman theologyDave knows exactly where it fits – and how it fits – all of it 100% real – all of it 100% serpent race – all of it 100% ARCHON – all of it 100% Gen 6 – all of it alien space men / ancient astronautsRavana's Giant Feet Found in Sri Lanka? Sigiriya's Reptilian Secret | Praveen Mohan More on Sigiriya – fascinating stuffyoutu.be/AhDy7ygZg50Sigiriya (Ravana's Palace) - Incredible Ancient Technology Found in Sri Lanka?youtu.be/CgFnRoFMHwQSe7en Stages of Defense at Sigiriya, Sri Lanka - Part I
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Dec 15, 2021 21:16:24 GMT -5
Dave, we have talked about Rama’s Bridge before. How interesting things always come back around. I watched several of his videos. They are all interesting! Did you know that he was heavily censored by YouTube and many of his videos banned? Wonder why?
Rama's Bridge - The 1,750,000 Year Old Man Made Bridgehttps://hitfull.com › articles › ramas-bridge-the-175000... This so called Rama's Bridge or Rama Setu, also known as Adam's Bridge, is a long, twisting stretch of shoal and sandbank connecting the Indian island of ...
Rama's Bridge: A Bridge Built By Monkeys | Amusing Planethttps://www.amusingplanet.com › 2017/06 › ramas-bri... Jun 6, 2017 — This so called Rama's Bridge or Rama Setu, also known as Adam's Bridge, is a long, twisting stretch of shoal and sandbank connecting the Indian ...
Rama's Bridge - CT Evanshttps://www.ctevans.net › HIS111 › Notes › Ramabridge Apr 18, 2020 — Hanuman, Rama's comrade, with his army of monkey-men built a "bridge," or causeway, across the narrow strait from India to Sri Lanka to reach ...
10 Mysterious Things About Ram Setu - Nativeplanethttps://www.nativeplanet.com › travel-guide › interestin... Aug 29, 2018 — Ram Setu or Rama's Bridge is a causeway that is created across the sea connecting Pamban Island in Tamil Nadu to Mannar Island in Sri Lanka.
Rama's Bridge: Where Modern Science And Ancient Myths ...https://www.ancient-origins.net › ramas-bridge-where-... Hindu tradition has long held the belief that this strip of land was a bridge built by their beloved deity Rama as described in the Hindu epic the Ramayana. It ...
Adam's Bridge - Image of the Week - ESA Earth Onlinehttps://earth.esa.int › content › article › adam-s-bridge Adam's Bridge, also known as Rama's Bridge or Rama Setu, is a chain of limestone shoals, between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island, ... Satellite/Sensor: Landsat 5 TM & Landsat 8 OLI Acq. Date: 28 Apr 2006 and 23 Jan 2018
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2021 13:35:07 GMT -5
Very Interesting Dave
Ravana seems to be a Nephilim with green like skin and a mother of strange descendent. He mentions the reptilian race, and not sure if he speaks of Archons, but it's a fascinating video.
The claws look like reptile claws, from some dinosaur.
Shalom
PS
Please make your claims correct
D"Robert claims that satan is only a Hebrew angels – for the Hebrews only
The Opposer, as the Hebrew word means, opposes all humans, especially those who wish to see salvation, thus the opposers also oppose God, and His Salvation for mankind.
D"So I am curious to know how Robert could possibly fit this video into his Roman theology
The Opposer has been misrepresenting God since Adam's time, before the Great Flood. The Opposer can read Scripture and looks for ways to misrepresent Scripture.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 16, 2021 15:42:52 GMT -5
Ravana seems to be a Nephilim with green like skin and a mother of strange descendent. He mentions the reptilian race, and not sure if he speaks of Archons, but it's a fascinating video. The claws look like reptile claws, from some dinosaur.
not sure if he speaks of Archons – deny away – pretend you do not see
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down—the ancient serpent, called the devil and satan, who deceives the whole world.
Nephilim – demi-god – one parent human one parent a god – Giant – shapeshifter – reptilian – assumed the role of a King or God – ancient technology – ant-gravity – space man not sure if he speaks of Archons – deny away – pretend you do not see
D"So I am curious to know how Robert could possibly fit this video into his Roman theology The Opposer has been misrepresenting God since Adam's time, before the Great Flood. The Opposer can read Scripture and looks for ways to misrepresent Scripture. But you are - not sure if he speaks of Archons FYI - everything you saw is all post flood construction - some of it isn't even that old Rama's Bridge is a Ice age era construction - post flood
Please make your claims correct D"Robert claims that satan is only a Hebrew angels – for the Hebrews only How is King Ravanah and the Hindu back story of ancient alien reptilian gods fit into you Roman satan doctrine None of these Temples ever use the word devil or satan – play your word game – prove to me this has anything to do with your Hebrew satan They are all obviously the serpent race - of the Beast of Revelation - the god's of the 99%
The standard answer from all Roman Christians = they are myth - not real - imaginary
I want verse – lots of verses that explain your view Explain to me how all of this stonework is imaginary myth
You refuse to take a stand on the identity of the 33 other gods of the ahl You refuse to take a stand on the identity of Allah So – take a stand – explain away all of the Hindu back story with your Hebrew satan
And - if you say the Hindu gods are 'other gods' which one is your Hebrew satan - Baal - Bel - or Molech
I ask of you an indepth dicussion of the facts - are you able to do that? Do you know how?
If your doctrine can explain all - then do so
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2021 2:19:22 GMT -5
Ravani is a pagan god, carved to look like reptile gods, which symbolize the serpent race, as you claim, I see the evidence depicted here, carved by people who worshiped the Devil and His symbols. This does not prove the serpent race existed, as an archonic origin of 200 archons doing evil to human women and creating demigods to be worshiped. It may be simply the Devil making a marketed form for his deception. The devil is worshiped in many religions and many forms, its a game of deception. Sure I get the picture, people worshiped long ago, the serpent race depicted as a reptile form beast. The only proof of the orgin of archons having an origin has to come from Scripture, as Scripture is inspired by God. The opposer of GOD can intentionally spoil this knowledge by getting humans to build, create and carve anything the opposer wants to make deceptions. (stupid spell checker. worshipped is spelt with two pp's not one 'p') D" If your doctrine can explain all - then do soI would suggest you watch the Onslaught series of videos by Walter Veith, 450 DVD's that begin a journey of discovery. Walter is very good at explaining the evil things of the Masons, the Illuminati and the way the Devil deceives many. Not sure if Veith speaks of the serpent race, I will get back to you on this idea. youtu.be/1RDc-fwHsngThis video may get to you. It's Called Gnosticism and the word of God. broad word, gnosis, Also masons guard secret and higher knowledge. Also creep into places where is has no basis World history, belief that humans contain a piece of god, a divine spark, fallen into the bodies of humans Christian communities taught many different views. Some groups taught different views, ie gnostics so this battle raged from a early time. Origin was a Gnostic. if you believe you are divine (ie a spark inside of you) it's a lie the serpent talk. So no real beginning in this kind of thinking Gnostics confuses it, no real beginning evolution has no beginning, just a big bang. many have religions have cycles, no beginning. 11:35 some copies ended up in codex vandarnus, possibly a gnostic origin? not sure what Walter is saying here? flagship monument ... Rome has claim of ancient documents of ancient scripture modern versions are only by Catholics, with advanced knowledge changing a word here and there, more in line with Gnostic thinking Rome claims that it was the one that gave man the true Scriptures? Why would Bible warn against the word? which line do you follow? EGW says the line from Waldensian very controversial Rome is an expert in changing history. Rome burned books and destroyed history SO put on special glasses to regard truth 16:46 history always in favour of Rome Rome says the merchant of Lyons were the true Waldenses... 18:01 blatant arrogant statements of Rome. we are similar heretic It is a form of Gnsoticism, superior knowledge. 19:21 Some say our Great Controversy was wrong... deny EGW... no history record of Sabbath keeping Waldenses undermines the Spirit of Prophecy Allix, Piedmont, Waldenses, the longest sect of any 21:59 directly challenges Rome and others 23:16 peasants knew their Bible accurately SOP says Waldensian founded on Word of God, humble peasants, faith not newly received. They had faith of apostles, they had the true church of Christ. Waldensian, they celebrated Jewish Sabbath 26:49 Rome issued a bull against the Sabbath, pope Gregory 29:04 Waldensian opposed Rome and were persecuted by Rome for keeping the Jewish sabbath some gave up faith, some did not give up the Sabbath. 31:26 Satan poses to edit the Bible not based on right manuscripts, based on Gnosticisms, you have a problem. Waldensian, which manuscript did they have? Luther used a Waldensian Bible. 33:21 Luther may have started from Catholic Bible, but later used a Waldensian Bible. Gnosticism root of many Bible versions 34:55 Seems to me Dave, the ROME influences used Gnostic writings, the thing you oppose? West COtten Hott, used the ROme version, a ocean of purity, Alexandria side. 36:34 Early Christian was at Antioch , not Alexander Codex Vaticanus in library in 1475, to counter reformation 38:00 One Bible rely on heavy, Hebrew in Greek, Septuningt, the 70 scribes, short period of time. LXX. Really 72 scribes. This translation scrambles dates, scholars loves it. Only place of Septuagint is Origin, a Gnostic? Veith speaks of a date problem 41:23 this is a missing link, only found in origin, LXX, not possibly a true translation at all. 250 Septuagint does not exist... only the Rome bible versions... Stick to that which you know... Only dead sea scrolls are the only proper copies of old scrolls. 45:32 Origin was a Gnostic, changed much in Scripture... Greek vulgate and Latin vulgate are different copies KJV used the Waldensian Bible to translate the text. Rome was furious. Scholars favour Rome versions of Scripture. Dan 8:14 sanctuary cleansed, important to SDA NIV, sanctuary will be reconsecrated. TEV 1150 days evening and morning sacrifices no offered, and temple restored. important what manuscripts we use? Yes evening and morning is reference to a day. 51:04 if true, morning and evening sacrifice, messiah work is destroyed... so 1844 is true. 52:28 leave "the" out of a verse, everything changes. 56:06 "Apostle Club" In the omission, lies no less the doctrine of purgatory doctrine no touch the word of God "by himself" is omitted Heb 1:3 58:13 Allows penitence doctrine, Gnostic idea... reading document with Gnostic elements in it. 1:00 Col 1:14 through his blood omitted in the many Bible versions Catholic teaches you are saved by good works, not by blood of the Lamb Lev 17:11, blood on the altar make atonement for the soul important what manuscripts you use... Literally scores of book written, I have read them all. Cannot believe our scholars so deceived rely on flagships of Rome.. build a theology, that destroys the SDA pillars manuscripts are a problem...based on spurious manuscripts One Question for DAVE: Was Oregon a Gnostic? Does the history speak of this fact? to the law and testimony Dan 7:22 KJV in harmony with Bible and SOP new translation, render it differently 1:10:17 Veith speaks of the SOP about this verse. Some deny the SOP, we must rely on the common received text. Not based on Gnostic texts of the Bible God gave us the right documents, and the right manuscripts...to our reformers We must the language of the critics if you don't know Greek you can't read Scripture correctly SOP better to study Word, not Greek and Latin 1:14:25 leave Gnostic sentiments alone they set standards that they only can reach. Stick to simplicity of the Word. Loud cry, come out of her my people, do not accept her manuscripts R" I suggest you watch the entire video, a good intro into Gnostic views from the SDA view. Shalom Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2021 8:50:00 GMT -5
Ravani is a pagan god, carved to look like reptile gods, which symbolize the serpent race, as you claim, I see the evidence depicted here, carved by people who worshiped the Devil and His symbols.
This does not prove the serpent race existed, Now you deny Rev 12 and Gen 3 – the serpent race never existed So – you agree with Rome – these gods never existed – jut myth
Sure I get the picture, people worshiped long ago, the serpent race depicted as a reptile form beast. So why do you work so hard to deny this
The only proof of the orgin of archons having an origin has to come from Scripture, as Scripture is inspired by God. Book of Revelation chapter 12 – why do you deny scripture?
D"If your doctrine can explain all - then do so I would suggest you watch the Onslaught series of videos by Walter Veith, No answer – again no answer – refuse to answer – because you have no answer
youtu.be/1RDc-fwHsng This video may get to you. It's Called Gnosticism and the word of God. Instead of answering the question – you just suggest other videos to attack the source
Origin was a Gnostic. if you believe you are divine (ie a spark inside of you) it's a lie the serpent talk. So no real beginning in this kind of thinking One Question for DAVE: Was Oregon a Gnostic? Does the history speak of this fact? YES Robert – origin is called a gnostic by Rome Rome is only source for these labels Did Origin call himself a Gnostic - NO
(wiki) Origen of Alexandria was a Christian of the early third century who was the first theologian to formulate a systematic system. He lived in a turbulent period for the Christian Church, a period of Roman persecutions and loose doctrinal consensus. He was a priest, ordained under controversial conditions. His writings were extensive, much of which is not extant. In later centuries some extreme views by followers were attributed to him and his name was brought under suspicion. He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, specifically in its eleventh Canon:
Rome hated Origin because he said – we are to because a Christ – meaning we are to Jer 1:5 and witness to our fellow man – be the Christ for your neighbor – a Cyrus, a Moses, a disciple
(wiki)Of all these works his most important writing was the Hexapla, Hexapla is the term for a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible in six versions
Hebrew scripture in an interlinear bible made public for everyone – Rome had to stop that for sure
Why was the Hexapla important? The Hexapla serves as an important guide to Palestinian pre-Masoretic pronunciation of the language. The main interest of Origen lay in the fifth column, the Septuagint, which he edited on the basis of the Hebrew.
YES – Origin was an amazing Egyptian Coptic Priest to the First Christians of Egypt
I do not have the time to watch a 1hr video right now – maybe later if time permits
EGW says the line from Waldensian very controversial Rome is an expert in changing history. Rome burned books and destroyed history history always in favour of Rome
Robert – you have spent more than 2 years denying the Roman Edit Do you support your own posting or is this just more information your will again deny later
You still have not answered my question How does your satan god father giant reptialian pagan gods that came from space with adfvanced technology Especially when you deny Gen 6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2021 16:05:42 GMT -5
D"Rome hated Origin because he said – we are to because a Christ – meaning we are to Jer 1:5 and witness to our fellow man – be the Christ for your neighbor – a Cyrus, a Moses, a disciple YES – Origin was an amazing Egyptian Coptic Priest to the First Christians of Egypt
R" OK so we have to prove if Origin was a Gnostic or not. How do we do this?
D" I do not have the time to watch a 1hr video right now – maybe later if time permits Robert – you have spent more than 2 years denying the Roman Edit Do you support your own posting or is this just more information your will again deny later R" If you watched the whole video, you will see the Waldensians were woshipping the Lord correctly, BEFORE any ROME edit happened. The Waldensians did this from early times, say 300 AD. Rome did not start until much later with it's influence.
D"Robert – you have spent more than 2 years denying the Roman Edit R" The video shows you that ROME uses Gnostic sentiments, so you are following something Rome approves of. You are deceived by a Roman edit, not me. I use the waldensian Bible, not a Gnostic/Roman one, like you do.
So I have answered your question but you have no time to listen to my answer.
D"How does your satan god father giant reptialian pagan gods that came from space with adfvanced technology Especially when you deny Gen 6 R" this is a myth Dave. Just because Satan got people to worship Devil shedim as images of reptiles, and dinosaur creatures, does not make this real, only a deception. The Devil only got people to carve UFO images on rocks too, does not make it real, only a deception. You have fallen for images you think are real, just because people carved them in rocks does not make them real. The shedim could make any image of themselves as they liked, and so this makes the shedim like that? No, it's provides deception. No body knows what God is like, nobody knows what the cherub shedim is like either. Sure we read pictures in the Ezekiel account, gives us a clue, but nothing detailed. I am not denying the shedim Dave , or their deceptions , you add the shedim came from sex with humans, and this idea is not grounded in Scripture. You are twisting the text, I appreciate you view, but it's different to my view. The devil is a twister of truth , a father of lies, how can you rely on carvings of rocks by people who followed him?
Now I do not deny the shedim as a deceiving power. You add more to them than is necessary to know.
I suggest you spend more time having faith in God.
Knowing more about your enemy is a waste of time. Know God instead.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2021 17:01:52 GMT -5
YES – Origin was an amazing Egyptian Coptic Priest to the First Christians of Egypt R" OK so we have to prove if Origin was a Gnostic or not. How do we do this? As I have told you – as your own Walter veith video presents – you can call anything you do not like Gnostic – Paul wrote James, John, and Peter akk wrote the agl and gnostic heresy at the same time Are they gnostic or are they saints or are they disciples – did they know Jesus Christ or not
Robert – you have spent more than 2 years denying the Roman Edit Do you support your own posting or is this just more information your will again deny later R" If you watched the whole video, Too late – still ask the same question
D"Robert – you have spent more than 2 years denying the Roman Edit R" The video shows you that ROME uses Gnostic sentiments, so you are following something Rome approves of. You are deceived by a Roman edit, not me. I use the waldensian Bible, not a Gnostic/Roman one, like you do.
I googles your term - the waldensian Bible ZERO RESPONSE You have always spoke of the Roman Received Text
(wiki) In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") refers to all printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum omne
(wiki) Novum Instrumentum omne was the first published New Testament in Greek (1516)
(wiki) In 1525 - The Spanish Inquisition excommunicated him as a heretic, and, Manchester continued, “everything Erasmus had ever published was consigned to the Index Expurgatorius, which meant that any Catholic who read the prose which had once delighted a pontiff would be placing his soul in jeopardy.”
So Erasmus wrote your Textus Receptus - but you would be placing his soul in jeopardy if you read it Such a sound message you present - do you know what you are saying - or are you just making it up
D"How does your satan god father giant reptialian pagan gods that came from space with adfvanced technology Especially when you deny Gen 6 R" this is a myth Dave So all of these Hindu gods are myth? You have no room in your theology for the whole world
The devil is a twister of truth , a father of lies, how can you rely on carvings of rocks by people who followed him? YES – your right Robert these ancient carvings were done just for fun – they mean nothing All the world is a myth – except Roman doctrine
I suggest you spend more time having faith in God. You have no data - no verses - just an insulring remark
Ephesians chapter 6 never instructs the believe to be ignorant of the reality all around him Why does the SDA leave you so unprepared to witness to your neighbors? Why does reality have to be a myth for your doctrine to be correct Why does all of history have to be a myth so your doctrine can be correct You even argue that scripture does not mean what it says so your doctrine can be correct
And then when you run out of denial – you misrepresent others or just make up stuff
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 18, 2021 17:55:06 GMT -5
I use the waldensian Bible, not a Gnostic/Roman one, like you do. The Waldensian church is the largest Protestant denomination in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic. Today, there are about 20,000 Waldensians scattered throughout Italy. But the majority still live in three Piedmont valleys: the Val Chisone, Valle Germanasca, and Val Pellice. Why are you a SDA and not a Waldensian?www.adventistworld.org/were-waldensians-sabbath-keepers/Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally held a special affinity for the Waldensians, who, during a time of religious oppression, preserved and shared the Scriptures despite grim consequences. Adventists share a sense of comradery with this group for another reason, too. Ellen White shares “Through ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses . . . who kept the true Sabbath.” Other than Saturday – which is doubted by many – what else do they have in common with the SDA – I could find no correlationOur History - Waldensian Presbyterian Church www.waldensianpresbyterian.org › about › our-... The Waldensian Church is the oldest evangelical church in existence, dating back at least to the 12th century and thus anticipating the Reformation by at ... Waldensian are traditional Presbyterians and Calvin helped write their Bible(google) What Bible did the waldensians use?A Confession of Faith, with Reformed doctrines, was formulated and the Waldensians decided to worship openly in French. The French Bible, translated by Pierre Robert Olivétan with the help of Calvin and published at Neuchâtel in 1535, What does this Bible have to do with your Recieved Text?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2021 14:17:36 GMT -5
D" I googles your term - the waldensian Bible ZERO RESPONSE You have always spoke of the Roman Received TextR" The only translation I trust is the KJV. And the KJV came from the waldensian Bible, and if you google the term "waldensian Bible" you get hundreds of links, not zero as you claim. www.tapatalk.com/groups/av1611godsword/which-bible-did-the-waldenses-use-t953.html#:~:text=%20Which%20Bible%20Did%20the%20Waldenses%20Use%3F%20,in%20a%20line%20of%20Waldensian-type%20texts.%20More%20 The Waldenses were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157. It was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century. Historians like Allix, Leger, Gilley, Comba, and Nolan document this churchs continual use of the pure text of the bible. They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe.
1. Olivetan, a pastor of the Waldensian valley, translated a Waldensian Bible into French. 2. This French Olivetan (Olivetan was a relative of Calvin), in turn, became the basis of the Geneva Bible in English. 3. Luther used the German Tepl Bible, which represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German, to make Luthers German Bible. 4. Diodatis Italian Bible was one in a line of Waldensian-type texts.bible.org/illustration/waldensian-doctrineWaldensian Doctrine
The Waldensians are an example of how one group can suffer persecution and still survive and prosper. How did they do it for nearly 800 years? The answer lies at the core of the Waldensian doctrine: they focused on having a close relationship with Jesus Christ through the Bible and teaching.
In the late 12th century, Waldo of Lyons, a prosperous merchant, made three important decisions that would not only affect his life, but the lives of many who would choose to follow him. In essence, these three decisions formed the basis for the Waldensian doctrine. Waldo funded the transcription of several books of the Bible, he gave away all he had and was reduced to a beggar, and he determined to preach the gospel to all who would listen. Although the requirements to become a Waldensian were strict, many people joined Waldo’s group because they wanted a closer relationship with Jesus Christ.
From its beginning, the Waldensian church suffered much persecution because they were considered heretics. The Archbishop of Lyons attempted to stop Waldo and his followers from preaching the gospel and eventually excommunicated them from Lyons. The biggest act of atrocity against the Waldensians occurred in 1655, in an event known as the Piedmont Easter. During Easter week, 5,000 French soldiers were given permission to pillage the Waldensian settlements, killing over 1,700 Waldensians.
When Louis XIV assumed the throne in France, he focused on expelling the Waldensians. Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes which gave religious freedom to French Protestants. In 1686, another edict was issued that strictly prohibited Protestant assembly, and children were forced to be baptized in the church. Waldensian churches were burned, and Waldensian schoolmasters and pastors were given 15 days to choose between exile and renouncing their beliefs. Many church members chose exile and fled to northern Italy where they found refuge. However, their safety in Italy was soon jeopardized. In April of that year, the Waldensians rose up in arms under the direction of pastor Henry Arnaud, but they suffered a brutal defeat. In the course of this war with the Italian government, 2,000 Waldensians died, 2,000 renounced their beliefs, and 8,000 were imprisoned. After this brutal attack, the Waldensian church was reduced to 3,400, but still they did not give up.
R" Here is a typical debate you will find between SDA and the JKV and the Waldensian Bible I quote" T here have been several on the board who believe that God has always perfectly preserved His Word and claim that the Old Latin and Waldensian are where this preserved Word was before the KJV. Here is an interesting article of note, especially for those KJVO's like Will who have claimed such a thing.
[Reprinted from Baptist Biblical Heritage 2:2, Summer, 1991]
We demonstrated in earlier issues of Baptist Biblical Heritage that the current "King James only" error had its origin in the tainted brain of Seventh-day Adventist missionary, professor, and college president Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872-1968). He propagated his false views in his book, Our Authorized BibleVindicated, published by the Adventists in 1930. Little noted in its day, this trove of misinformation and error was embraced by J. J. Ray and partly reproduced (via plagiarism) in his 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible; it was also largely reprinted in D. O Fuller's popular compilation, Which Bible? (1st edition, 1970; 5th edition, 1975. The 5th edition will be used here). Neither Ray nor Fuller informed his readers of Wilkinson's cult connection, and Fuller in particular specifically and deliberately sought to conceal this from those who read Which Bible? Besides KJV-onlyism, with its denigration of the Scripture text in the original languages, Wilkinson's writing has led many to adopt a completely false interpretation of Psalm 12:6,7, one that assumes these verses refer to the providential preservation of Scripture (specifically the KJV), rather than its true sense and meaning. Other particular errors that many have picked up directly or indirectly from cultist Wilkinson are a completely erroneous view of the Old Latin translation of the New Testament, and the nature of the Bible of the medieval Waldensians. It is these two errors which I wish to address now.
When treating the medieval Waldensians and their vernacular translation of the Bible, Wilkinson was driven by a desire to demonstrate their "orthodoxy" (according to his Adventist standard) in all particulars. In an attempt at their own brand of apostolic succession or Landmarkism, the Adventists have claimed the Waldensians as their spiritual ancestors, imputing to them such Adventist views as adherence to the standard of the law for righteousness, seventh day sabbath, and other matters (see Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, Pacific Press, 1971 edition, pp. 58-72).
Since Wilkinson viewed the so-called received Greek text as the only pure text, he tried to impute to the Waldensians the use of this same Greek text. "It was the Vulgate, Rome's corrupt Scriptures against the Received Text--the New Testament of the apostles, of the Waldensians, and of the Reformers." (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p.36 [and imprecisely quoted by Fuller in Which Bible?, p.209] ).
(There is a monstrous anachronism here and throughout Wilkinson, which we will note in passing. The term "received text" is properly used of the printed Greek texts issued by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, et al. between 1516 and 1633; this precise form of text did not exist before Erasmus, and therefore could not have been the New Testament of the apostles and Waldensians, though it was of the Reformers. The correct term or terms for the text Wilkinson wrote about is Byzantine, Syrian (following Hort), traditional, or majority text, which text differs from the received text in over 1,800 places, many involving whole verses or clauses. It would be most helpful if authors would simply use correct terminology in discussing these matters. Unfortunately, Wilkinson and Fuller rarely did).
Wilkinson claimed also that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, "the Bible of . . .the Waldensian Church of northern Italy," (OABV, p.24; WB, p.197). "The noble Waldenses in northern Italy still possessed in Latin the Received Text," (OABV, p.42; WB, p.214). "The Latin Vulgate . . . was different from the Bible of the Waldenses," (OABV, p.22; WB, p.195). This received text supposedly possessed by the Waldensians was alleged to be in the form of a Latin translation, the Old Latin or Itala version, which predates the Vulgate: "They [i.e., the Waldenses] knew and possessed the Vulgate. But the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which they lived and suffered and died," (OABV, p.28; WB, p.201).
Wilkinson summarily said, "Some authorities speak of the Waldenses as having as their Bible, the Vulgate. We regret to dispute these claims," (OABV, p.28; WB, p.201). And well should Wilkinson have regrets, for his disputation is utterly groundless!
In the above quoted claims, Wilkinson was guilty of two errors: first, identifying the Old Latin Itala version as Byzantine in text (anachronistically called the received text); and, second, affirming that the Waldensian Bible was based on the Itala and not on the Vulgate. We shall demonstrate that both these claims are false.
First, by no stretch of the imagination could the Old Latin version or versions, in its various Italic, African, or European forms, be honestly identified as Byzantine in text. In a very extensive and detailed chapter, "The Latin Versions," in his surpassingly excellent volume, The Early Versions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), Bruce M. Metzger wrote: "The textual affinities of the Old Latin versions are unmistakably with the Western type of text. Not infrequently noteworthy Old Latin readings agree with the Greek text of codex Bezae and the Old Syriac. On the whole the African form of the Old Latin presents the larger divergences from the generally received text, and the European the smaller," (p.325).
To illustrate the often wide departure of the Old Latin from the received text. I submit the following examples:
-Matthew 1:7,8--5 of 8 Old Latin manuscripts (OL mss.) read "Asaph" instead of the received text's "Asa."
-Matthew 1:10--5 of 8 OL mss. read "Amos" for "Amon."
-Matthew 1:18--all 10 OL mss. lack "Jesus."
-Matthew 6:13--7 of 11 OL mss. lack the doxology, and only 1 of the remaining 4 reads precisely as the received text.
-Matthew 6:15--8 of 11 OL mss. lack "their trespasses."
-Matthew 23:19--9 of 11 OL mss. lack "fools and."
-Mark 1:2--all 9 OL mss. read "Isaiah the prophet," instead of "the prophets."
-Luke 2:14--all 12 OL mss. read "of good pleasure," with the Vulgate and the Vaticanus Greek manuscript (along with other support), against the received text.
-Luke 24:3--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "of the Lord Jesus."
-Luke 24:6--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "he is not here but was raised."
-Luke 24:9--8 of 11 OL mss. lack "from the tomb."
-Luke 24:36--all 10 OL mss. either add "it is I; do not be afraid" to the phrase "and he said to them, peace be unto you," (3 of 10), or else they lack the entire clause (the other 7).
-Luke 24:52--6 of 9 OL mss. lack "him."
-John 5:32--5 of 8 OL mss. read "you" instead of "I."
-Romans 6:11--9 of 10 OL mss. lack "our Lord."
-Romans 8:1--all 10 OL mss. lack "but after the spirit;" in addition, 2 of these mss. also lack the clause "who walk not after the flesh."
-I Corinthians 6:20--none of the 11 OL mss. have the Byzantine addition, "and in your spirit, which are God's."
-I Corinthians 7:5--all 10 OL mss. lack "fasting and."
-I Timothy 3:16--all 10 OL mss. have a relative pronoun, "that which," instead of the Byzantine reading "God."
-Hebrews 10:38--7 of 8 OL mss. add "my."
-James 2:20--8 of 9 OL mss. read "idle" instead of "dead."
-James 4:4--all 9 OL mss. lack "adulterers and."
-James 5:20--all 8 OL mss. add "his" to "soul."
-I Peter 3:15--all 7 OL mss. read "Christ" instead of "God."
-I John 3:1--all 7 OL mss. add "and we are," as do the Vulgate, Vaticanus, and many other authorities.
-I John 3:5--all 7 OL mss. lack "our."
These 26 examples (gleaned practically at random from the apparatus of The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, 1975, published by the United Bible Societies), represent only a small fraction of the Old Latin departures from the received text (as well as from the Byzantine text). Very many more could be listed, but surely these are enough to refute the false claim that the Old Latin in any of its forms is Byzantine in text type.
And in this context, it is worth noting how some writers include the Old Latin versions in their list of "good guy" translations (meaning those agreeing with the received text), even though they depart frequently and substantially from that Greek text. J. J. Ray in ignorance does this on p.109 of God Wrote Only One Bible (1970 edition), as does Peter S. Ruckman on p.VI in the back of The Bible Babel (1964). Not surprising, both also include Wycliffe's version--which was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate--among the dependable versions!
It also needs to be pointed out that the first full paragraph on p.188 of Which Bible? (5th edition), which softens the claims of a Byzantine text for the Old Latin, is the work of Fuller, not Wilkinson. In that paragraph, Fuller engaged in another of his "back and fill" operations to rescue Wilkinson from the twilight zone of gross error he frequently ventured into, and Fuller did not entirely succeed. Fuller did correctly note that the Old Latin evidence is not always favorable to the received text (an impression the reader would never have gotten from Wilkinson), but was in error when he declared that much of the Old Latin is favorable to the received text, and that the received text has a place in the Old Latin evidence. No Old Latin manuscript could be described as typically Byzantine by any reasonable use of the term.
As for the claim that the Waldensians used the Old Latin as the base for their vernacular translation, numerous historians clearly contradict Wilkinson's dubious assertion. I will quote these historians in approximately chronological order.
After quoting Robert Robertson's remark about Peter Waldo's having "procured a translation of the four gospels from Latin into French" (Ecclesiastical Researches, 1792, pp.462-3), William Jones added: "The Latin Vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures at that time in Europe; but that language was inaccessible to all, except one in an hundred of its inhabitants. Happily for Waldo, his situation in life enabled him to surmount that obstacle . . . .[H]e either himself translated, or procured some one else to translate the four Gospels into French," (History of the Christian Church , vol. II, pp.7, 9, 10; 5th edition, 1826).
Noted church historian Augustan Neander wrote regarding Waldo: "[H]e gave to two ecclesiastics, one Stephen de Ansa, a man of some learning, the other Bernard Ydros, who was a practiced writer, a certain sum of money, on condition they would prepare for him a translation of the gospels and other portions of the Bible into the Romance language, which one was to dictate, the other write down," (General History of the Christian Religion and Church , vol. IV, pp. 606-7, 2nd ed., 1853).
The Waldensians having produced this translation, "sent delegates from their body to pope Alexander the Third, transmitting to him a copy of their Romance version of the Bible, and soliciting his approbation as well as that of their spiritual society," (Ibid., p.608). It is highly unlikely that the Waldensians would have submitted such a version to the pope for approval if it were not Vulgate-based.
Baptist historian Thomas Armitage records: "He [Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people," (History of the Baptists , p.295).
J.J. Herzog, in his extensive article, "Waldenses," reports: "A very natural desire to know what the lectiones, the recitals from the Vulgate, really contained, led him [Waldo] to procure a translation of them into the vernacular tongue, the Roumant, a Provencal dialect; and as he felt the great use of a guide in studying the Bible, the translation of the Bible, or of parts of it, was followed by translations of extracts from the Fathers," (A Religious Encyclopedia, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. IV, p.2471, 3rd edition, 1891).
While not as detailed or full in their comments regarding the Roumant or Waldensian translation of the Bible as we would like, all these authorities (and an extensive search has failed to turn up any that contradict these findings) unite in their testimony that the translation made at the behest of Peter Waldo and used by the Waldensians was directly made from the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome. One additional writer, fortunately, does give a fuller accounting of the subject, as we now will see.
Mr. J. A. Wylie, in his book, History of the Waldenses (1870, 4th ed.), reported, "The 'Lingua Romana,' or Roumant tongue, was the common language of the south of Europe from the eighth to the fourteenth century . . . .Into this tongue--the Roumant--was the first translation of the whole of the New Testament made so early as the twelfth century. This fact Dr. Gilly has been at great pains to prove in his work, The Roumant Version of the Gospel according to John [1848]. The sum of what Dr. Gilly, by a patient investigation into the facts, and a great array of historic documents, maintains, is that all the books of the New Testament were translated from the Latin Vulgate [emphasis added] into the Roumant, that this was the first literal version since the fall of the empire, that it was made in the twelfth century, and was the first translation available for popular use . . . .it was made, as Dr. Gilly, by a chain of proofs, shows, most probably under the superintendence and at the expense of Peter Waldo of Lyons, not later than 1180," (pp. 12, 13).
Here, then, is the conclusion of the acknowledged expert in the field: the Waldensian Bible was made from the Vulgate. An examination of Gilly's work directly provides a little more detail to the picture. Gilly plainly states about the translators of the Roumant version that, "They used the Vulgate of Jerome for their text" (p. xcix), while at the same time he points out that that Vulgate text was of an occasionally mixed character. At certain points, the Roumant version will agree now with one, now with another of the Old Latin manuscripts. Gilly notes seven such agreements in John with OL ms. "a," six with "b," five with "f," and three with "d" (p. c). Consulting Gilly's notes on pp.93-114 reveals that these Old Latin manuscript agreements with the Roumant against the Vulgate are nearly always exceedingly minute--a matter of punctuation, the spelling of a proper name, occasionally the deletion of a clause (e.g.., "who is over all," John 3:31; "for Jews have no dealings with Samaritans," John 4:9). In many of these cases, there are OL mss. on both sides of the reading, and in apparently none of the cases does the OL reading agree with the received Greek text against the Vulgate, while in several cases, the OL reading corresponds with the Vaticanus Greek manuscript, the chief witness in the Gospels to the Alexandrian text. The late F. F. Bruce briefly alluded to these occasional Old Latin readings in the Waldensian Bible, and characterized these readings as Western (not Byzantine). See The Books and the Parchments, pp. 217, 218, 3rd edition, 1963.
It is not in the least surprising to discover that medieval Vulgate manuscripts used by the Waldensians would display a mixed text with infrequent readings of minor import corresponding to some Old Latin manuscripts. Indeed, a chief characteristic of medieval Vulgate manuscripts is the incredible amount of mixture in the texts. However, the presence of a few Old Latin readings (and of a non-Byzantine sort) in the Waldensian Bible in no way makes theirs an Old Latin Bible, any more than the presence of a few Byzantine readings in the Sinaiticus makes it a typically Byzantine manuscript, or the presence of some 90 Latin Vulgate readings in the King James Version New Testament makes it a non-Byzantine-based translation. The Waldensian Bible was in all essential points a translation of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, as was the later English translation of John Wycliffe. Wilkinson's wishing otherwise does not make it so.
Let us hear then the conclusion of the matter: once again Wilkinson has been exposed as exceedingly unreliable and inaccurate in his writing on the text/translation issue. He is completely wrong in his claim that the Old Latin version is a Latin translation corresponding closely to the received Greek text. And he is greatly mistaken in his bold but unfounded assertion that the Bible of the medieval Waldensians was made from the Old Latin, rather than the Latin Vulgate. It must also once again be pointed out that J. J. Ray and David Otis Fuller adopted without foundation the false views of Wilkinson, and, what is worse, helped spread Wilkinson's misinformation through their republication of his work.end quote R" too hard to readI quote" I have had a hard time trying to understand exactly what you are saying here. And more than mid way through and still not understanding, I quit reading.
Can you give a short and to the point summary please?R" I agree. I quote" The crux of the argument is to show that the Waldensian text is quite different from the Old Latin in several places. For those who believe that God preserved His word perfectly through the Old Latin, the Waldensian Bible, and now the KJV, this information is a crushing blow to that argument. If, therefore, God has not always preserved His word the way KJVO's claim He has, then their singular primacy claim of the KJVO as God's preserved Word of God takes a big hit, and they must find another text that contained God's perfect, inerrant Word before 1611. R" Hmm? I would disagree. History is not going to tell us much as the Romans destroyed things to hide truth, what is apparent to me is the Waldensian Bible was the closest to the Bibles the Apostle early church had. historicist.info/articles/the-waldenses-and-the-bible/I quote the SDA Wilkinson We wish to quote from a book entitled Our Authorized Version Vindicated, copyright 1930, by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, who (being a Seventh-Day Adventist) cannot be accused of being partial to us. Mr. Wilkinson wrote:
. . . down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the Apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where the Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian, and the churches of the Reformation. This first stream appears, with very little change, in the Protestant Bibles of many languages, and in English, in that Bible known as the King James Version, the one which has been in use for three hundred years in the English speaking world.
The second stream is a small one of a very few MSS. These last manuscripts are represented: (a) In Greek:–The Vatican MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph, its brother (in the Russian Museum in Moscow). (b) In Latin:–The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. (c) In English:– The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible. (d) In English again:–In many modern Bibles which introduce practically all the Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate which were rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation; among these, prominently, are the Revised Versions.–pp. 12, 13.end quote R" THis link is a good one "https://historicist.info/articles/the-waldenses-and-the-bible/ The “Great Reformation” which followed over a century after Wickliffe’s death did not make the Catholic Bible the “true Bible,” any more than it made the Catholic Church the “true church.” As shown above, the Protestant Reformers and the Waldenses all refused to use the Catholic manuscripts (either Vulgate or Vatican).R" Why did they refuse the ROMAN EDIT BIBLE version? Because it contain Gnostic sentiments, the very thing Dave seems to enjoy but also oppose. You are confused my friend. I quote" Preservation of the Bible by the Waldenses (From Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 1930, pp. 31-42 ) by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph. D.
The Bible of the Waldenses Brought from Judea To show that the messengers of God who carried manuscripts from the churches of Judea to the churches of northern Italy and on, brought to the forerunners of the Waldenses a Bible different from the Bible of Roman Catholicism, I quote the following:
The method which Allix has pursued, in his History of the Churches of Piedmont, is to show that in the ecclesiastical history of every century, from the fourth century, which he considers a period early enough for the enquirer after apostolical purity of doctrine, there are clear proofs that doctrines, unlike those which the Romish Church holds, and conformable to the belief of the Waldensian and Reformed Churches, were maintained by theologians of the north of Italy down to the period, when the Waldenses first came into notice. Consequently the opinions of the Waldenses were not new to Europe in the eleventh or twelfth centuries, and there is nothing improbable in the tradition, that the Subalpine Church persevered in its integrity in an uninterrupted course from the first preaching of the gospel in the valleys. – Gilly,Waldensian Researches, pp. 118, 119.end quote D" Such a sound message you present - do you know what you are saying - or are you just making it up"R" do some research first D"S o all of these Hindu gods are myth? R" No, the Devil markets his religion with many flavors. D" YES – your right Robert these ancient carvings were done just for fun – they mean nothingR" They mean deception, it has served the purpose for you hasn't it, you believe in the serpent race don't you? Whereas I don't, but do support the idea the Devil has many markets of religion to deceive, I would rather spend my time getting to know Jesus. D" Why does the SDA leave you so unprepared to witness to your neighbors?R" Why does Paul speak so little of Gnostic writings, as does John? Focus on the truth, not the enemy of truth. D" Why are you a SDA and not a Waldensian?R" Labels apply to time, we are both Hebrew Christians who have faith in Jesus, our Saviour. D" Other than Saturday – which is doubted by many – what else do they have in common with the SDA – I could find no correlationR" Did you look? Try reading the links above and the book by WIlkensen D"W hat does this Bible have to do with your Recieved Text?R" Seems to me the Waldensians is my answer to a preRoman group that kept the true Bible truth before the Roman Gnostic Edit came along in 300AD, in great force. The Waldensians were from 100AD, and were closest to the Apostles faith. I am beginning to answer your question you wanted answers to 2 years of waiting. Now do you research and do it carefully into the Waldensian. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 21, 2021 15:44:13 GMT -5
D" I googles your term - the waldensian Bible ZERO RESPONSE You have always spoke of the Roman Received Text R" The only translation I trust is the KJV. And the KJV came from the waldensian Bible, and if you google the term "waldensian Bible" you get hundreds of links, not zero as you claim.
Just this moment – repeat google sear for: the waldensian Bible About 87,500 results (0.72 seconds) For waldensians
R" The only translation I trust is the KJV. – and it came from Gnostic heretic Erasmus
3. Luther used the German Tepl Bible, which represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German, to make Luthers German Bible.
According to the Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland), (LUTHER’S CHURCH) Luther relied heavily on the Vulgate and not on the original Greek: "Luther translated according to the Latin text Luther Bible - Wikipedia
R" Here is a typical debate you will find between SDA and the JKV and the Waldensian Bible
We demonstrated in earlier issues of Baptist Biblical Heritage that the current "King James only" error had its origin in the tainted brain of Seventh-day Adventist
Mainstream Christianity does not support KJV only Jeff Brenner does not support the validity of the KJV Your Walter Veith does not support the accuracy of the KJV
Wilkinson claimed also that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, "the Bible of . . .the Waldensian Church of northern Italy," I’m confused – the Received text is from Erasmus and Greek Luther translated from the Latin Vulgate
"The noble Waldenses in northern Italy still possessed in Latin the Received Text," (OABV, p.42; WB, p.214). "The Latin Vulgate . . . was different from the Bible of the Waldenses," (OABV, p.22; WB, p.195). This received text supposedly possessed by the Waldensians was alleged to be in the form of a Latin translation, the Old Latin or Itala version, which predates the Vulgate:
The Received text is from Erasmus and Greek – as did Rome Some of the Norther Waldenses used the Latin Vulgate as did Luther
To illustrate the often wide departure of the Old Latin from the received text. I submit the following examples: Correct – the Received Text is Greek (Rome) not the Latin Vulgate (Lutherian)
As for the claim that the Waldensians used the Old Latin as the base for their vernacular translation, numerous historians clearly contradict Wilkinson's dubious assertion. I will quote these historians in approximately chronological order.
OK – So the claim is the Waldenses used the Greek Textus Receptus (like Rome) – not the Latin vulgate (like the Lutherians)
Noted church historian Augustan Neander wrote regarding Waldo: "[H]e gave to two ecclesiastics, one Stephen de Ansa, a man of some learning, the other Bernard Ydros, who was a practiced writer, a certain sum of money, on condition they would prepare for him a translation of the gospels and other portions of the Bible into the Romance language, which one was to dictate, the other write down," (General History of the Christian Religion and Church , vol. IV, pp. 606-7, 2nd ed., 1853). This would have been from the Greek or Latin into FRENCH
Here, then, is the conclusion of the acknowledged expert in the field: the Waldensian Bible was made from the Vulgate. Which is a different source than the Received Text of the JKV
It is not in the least surprising to discover that medieval Vulgate manuscripts used by the Waldensians would display a mixed text with infrequent readings of minor import corresponding to some Old Latin manuscripts.
Latin, Latin, Latin not one mention of your Greek textus receptus Roman Received text - KJV
end quote R" too hard to read YES – you do have a reading comprehension problem
Can you give a short and to the point summary please? The Bible used by the Waldenses was from the Greek – not the Latin However some Waldenses from Norther Italy / France kept the French translation from the Latin Vulgate
I quote" The crux of the argument is to show that the Waldensian text is quite different from the Old Latin in several places. OK
For those who believe that God preserved His word perfectly through the Old Latin, the Waldensian Bible, and now the KJV, this information is a crushing blow to that argument. If, therefore, God has not always preserved His word the way KJVO's claim He has, then their singular primacy claim of the KJVO as God's preserved Word of God takes a big hit, and they must find another text that contained God's perfect, inerrant Word before 1611. R" Hmm? I would disagree. History is not going to tell us much as the Romans destroyed things to hide truth, what is apparent to me is the Waldensian Bible was the closest to the Bibles the Apostle early church had.
NO IT DOES NOT – it says most of the Waldenses used Greek – not Latin Vulgate Latin Vulgate was written by Roman Catholic Saint Jerome
(google) Was the Latin Vulgate the first Bible? The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh rather than from the Greek Septuagint. It is also the first translation of the Greek NT into Latin.
POINT – the Greek came first – the oldest we have is the Greek Your KJV – was originally 100% Erasmus Greek
. . . down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the Apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases COULD NOT AGREE MORE
The second stream is a small one of a very few MSS. These last manuscripts are represented: (a) In Greek:–The Vatican MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph, its brother (in the Russian Museum in Moscow). YES – very few surviving manuscripts from this era – Thank you Rome Yes – what survives from that time period is GREEK
The “Great Reformation” which followed over a century after Wickliffe’s death did not make the Catholic Bible the “true Bible,” any more than it made the Catholic Church the “true church.” As shown above, the Protestant Reformers and the Waldenses all refused to use the Catholic manuscripts (either Vulgate or Vatican).
R" Why did they refuse the ROMAN EDIT BIBLE version? Because it contain Gnostic sentiments, the very thing Dave seems to enjoy but also oppose. You are confused my friend.
Robert – your reading comprehension fails you – you read into this passage what you want to see The reformist did not reject the KJV Bible – they rejected the Roman commentary 1500 Luther’s Bible allowed the people to read it for themselves 1600 Your KJV allowed people to read it for themselves
D"So all of these Hindu gods are myth? R" No, the Devil markets his religion with many flavors.
OK – explaine to me how your satan can generate a race of giant serpent gods when you claim they cannot father children in Gen 6 This was the question put to you – your answer – it is a myth Answer the question
D"Why does the SDA leave you so unprepared to witness to your neighbors? R" Why does Paul speak so little of Gnostic writings, as does John? Focus on the truth, not the enemy of truth. I didn’t see your answer – you avoided then deflected
D"What does this Bible have to do with your Recieved Text? R" Seems to me the Waldensians is my answer to a preRoman group that kept the true Bible truth before the Roman Gnostic Edit came along in 300AD, in great force. The Waldensians were from 100AD, and were closest to the Apostles faith. D"What does this Bible have to do with your Roman Greek inspired Recieved Text?
I have the Nag Hammadi that represent the beliefs of Egyptian Christians <250AD The Dead Sea Scroll are from 80AD You say all of it is error and myth
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 22, 2021 12:38:26 GMT -5
The revived text was a collection of the earliest Greek and it was used to draft the 1611 KJV. If Robert is using the Waldenses Bible, then he is using an English transition, of a French Translation, of a Latin Translation, of the original Greek. It is obvious which would have more translation drift. If the real Bible is the Latin Vulgate written by Saint Jerome, then why don't you hear about New Testament Latin, or have New Testament Latin translation classes? Angela Tarrant was a big time Lutheran, her Bible was the KJV. What ever happened to the Latin Lutheran Bible? (google) The Sixtine Vulgate (1590) is the first official Bible of the Catholic Church. The Clementine Vulgate (1592) is a standardized edition of the medieval Vulgate, and the second official Bible of the Catholic Church. (google) – Which branch of Christianity read the Bible in Latin? The Bible translations into Latin are the versions used in the Western part of the former Roman Empire until the Reformation and still used, along with translations from Latin into the vernacular, in the Roman Catholic Church. Today – The Roman Catholic ChurchWhy don't you hear about New Testament Latin, or have New Testament Latin translation classes?Easy answer – it is easy Latin – and Latin is just Latin I took a year of Latin in high school – 1972 – many of the homework assignment included NT passages Do I remember – not really But as you know I have about 7 years total in Greek classes and taught Greek to others – for grade and for leisure – grammar and syntax are similar What ever happened to the Latin Lutheran Bible?Luther's Bible was only in German There were several other different versions in English – (google) The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years. (google) Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395. Each is the work of a singe man The 1611 KJV was commissioned by a team of translators – which gives it its first leg up The by the Power of the England the the Englaish language – the KJV became the standard Today – the RKJV as well as all newer translation – rely on over 5500 different Greek textsBetween them all there are 650,000 different textual differences Do these difference spoil – or change anything – NO Robert has posted conflicting evidenceHis Walter Veith video says KJV only – then he point out errors of the KJV EXCEPT – his error are not textual error they are English errors 1611 KJV said The judgment – newer bibles just say judgment Except the word THE does not even appear in the Greek text – only the 1611 English Robert also praises Jeff Brenner as the Hebrew expertJeff Brenner rails against the KJV only attitude and post video againt it Another example Walter Veith points out that one passage says – ‘by Himself’ in the 1611 English Again that phrase ‘by himself’ only exist in the 1611 English – all Greek text say ‘though himself’ Are these real arguments – who cares – Robert has made this argument just to damage Mainstream Jewish or Christian teaching – just spread the doubt – deny – argue – take sides – stay apart – do not agree – anything except face the Reality of the Archon Are these real arguments – who cares Those of us who care study the origional language - the older the better because it is closest to the source - the more ancient documents we can find the more we know and understand
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 23, 2021 2:38:15 GMT -5
You still have not answered my question How does your satan god father giant reptialian pagan gods that came from space with adfvanced technology Especially when you deny Gen 6
D"You just claimed that all the Hindu gods were Myth R" I do not deny HIndu gods, only that they looked like reptile feet, thus promoting the idea this is evidence of the serpent race.
You theology is contradictory
Question – is the serpent in the garden a physical / biological creature? – yes ot no Gen 3:14 Adonai Elohim said to the serpent, “Because you did this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and above every animal of the field. (equivalent / same level with the beast of the field) On your belly will you go, and dust will you eat all the days of your life.- (Crawl on your belly and eat dust = a physical biological creature)
Robert once said – the serpent was innocent – it was possessed by satan
Question – why would your Feel Good god of Love only – cures the innocent?
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon … the ancient serpent, Question –is the Great Red Dragon possessed by your satan? – it Is also the serpent
Question – you say your satan is a cherub and cannot father children But you say your cherub can appear as man – eat food – they can appear as multidimensional beings with wings and faces – they can even appear as the strangers we meet in our daily lives
R" I do not deny HIndu gods, only that they looked like reptile feet, thus promoting the idea this is evidence of the serpent race. But your cherub cannot appear as a serpent Then how can your satan be the Great Red Dragon who is that ancient serpent - if it cannot appear as a serpent?
Your theology is contradictory R" I do not deny HIndu gods, only that they looked like reptile feet, thus promoting the idea this is evidence of the serpent race.
So you are in complete denial of agl/NT Revelations 12 Why are you not guilty of picking and choosing scripture that only supports your satan god. pecept upon precept, lie upon line – your view and agl/NT scripture are contradictory
The Beast = The Great Red Dragon – who is that ancient serpent Why do you go so far to deny scripture and hide the Reality of the Archon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 14:34:55 GMT -5
D"How does your satan god father giant reptialian pagan gods that came from space with adfvanced technology Especially when you deny Gen 6 R" Who says the Devil-Satan has to father reptile pagan gods? Why not just use the sinning cherubs He already has, and get them to be worshipped by humans?
D"Question –is the Great Red Dragon possessed by your satan? – it Is also the serpent R" Yes
D"But you say your cherub can appear as man – eat food – they can appear as multidimensional beings with wings and faces – they can even appear as the strangers we meet in our daily lives R" Maybe some functions are switched off. Jesus said humans never are given to marriage in heaven? SO I suppose cherubs do not have a sexual function to procreate.
D"So you are in complete denial of agl/NT Revelations 12 Why are you not guilty of picking and choosing scripture that only supports your satan god. R" You are allowed to add your own views, so I can see your views? All you do is mock my view, and hardly ever discuss your view?
D" Why do you go so far to deny scripture and hide the Reality of the Archon R" I do not deny the existence of the rulers of darkness, nor the evidence they leave behind for humans to pick up. They are deceivers. I am only battling their origins with you, not their reality.
If they wanted humans to represent them as reptile creatures, fine. But this does not mean they are origins from Gen 6, only a picture that they see themselves as reptile creatures. A deception? to me yes. The only authority I trust is the Scriptures, they say the archons are cherubims that sinned, and their feet look like the calf, what ever that means??
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 23, 2021 16:28:51 GMT -5
R" Who says the Devil-Satan has to father reptile pagan gods? Why not just use the sinning cherubs He already has, and get them to be worshipped by humans? Why doesn't scripture say the serpent in the garden was a cherub angel – instead the serpent is a biological creature – who is the Beast of revelation
SO I suppose cherubs do not have a sexual function to procreate. Correct – you deny Gen 3:15 – satan has no seed according to you
D"So you are in complete denial of agl/NT Revelations 12 R" You are allowed to add your own views, so I can see your views? All you do is mock my view, and hardly ever discuss your view? It is all I do here – and my view = scripture Revelation 12 – the Best appeared during creation in a plurality – it is a race of biological creatures The Beast of revelation – who is the serpent of the Garden is a biological creature and curse to the ground and to eat dust
D" Why do you go so far to deny scripture and hide the Reality of the Archon R" I do not deny the existence of the rulers of darkness, nor the evidence they leave behind for humans to pick up. They are deceivers. I am only battling their origins with you, not their reality.
You claim that ancient gods are myth – you will not take a stand on the identity of the ‘other gods’ of the ahl – you will not even discuss Allah – you deny ancient gods, modern gods, and space gods / UFOs
Everything David Ike said is completely of no value you said Everything L.A. Marzulli said is error and of not value – no truth in it You say you studied with Jeff Brenner – but refuse to learn from him You ask me to watch your Walter Veith and he does not agree with you
If they wanted humans to represent them as reptile creatures, fine. But this does not mean they are origins from Gen 6, only a picture that they see themselves as reptile creatures. A deception? to me yes.
WOW Robert – you have been paying such close attention – it boggles the mind 1- Gen 6 happened before the flood – mark that down so you do not get confused 2- 90% of them are in chain in prison – Jude / 2 Peter awaiting Rev 9 3- Hindu Gods all happened after the flood – Inca gods after the flood – ahl gods after the flood 4- the stories of ancient astronauts and alien gods all come after the flood 5- the 7 tribes of Amorite that had to be complexly eliminated = the Sons of Anak Why do you try to hide this scripture?
The only authority I trust is the Scriptures, they say the archons are cherubims that sinned, Nope – only Rome says that – no one ever had that idea until Rome invented it You have failed to present one pre-Roman validation Scripture (Rev 12) says that it/they appeared during creation in a plurality – the Beast is the serpent – and the serpent is a biological creature that has seed (Gen 3) and Paul describs them as our real struggle (Eph 6) and Col 1:16 tells us they were created by God for God
Scripture says they were created by God for God But no where do we read - God said let there be a Beast Instead scripture just says - it appeared out of no where How can this be God's creation? - by the Left Hand of Mystery
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him.
This verse alone should put an end to your satan rising up aganst God in opposition - by satan's choice - by satan's free will
All things were created for a purpose - no created thing ever evolved into a different purpose ZERO evolution - in heaven or on earth
|
|