Fake Conservatives Are Rewriting the Bible

[happyJoy]

looks like the 'divine word' getting re-written (again):


Conservatives Are Rewriting the Bible to Free It From "Liberal Bias"
By Joseph Laycock and Thomas Fabisiak, Religion Dispatches
Posted on October 27, 2009, Printed on March 25, 2010

In 2006, Andy Schlafly, best known as the son of notorious anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, launched a wiki site called Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia. The nation’s sixth most frequently visited Web site had, he felt, become dominated by liberal and anti-Christian bias.

Now Schlafly has a new project: rewriting the Bible to free it from liberal bias. The new translation will be free of “emasculated” and “dumbed-down” language as well as “liberal wordiness.” So-called “later-inserted liberal passages” will be deleted entirely. All of these changes will be made by amending the King James Version of the Bible through an online wiki format.

While the Conservative Bible Project (CBP) has so far been regarded largely as a joke, it does raise some interesting questions. The idea of writing a sacred text through a wiki is largely unprecedented. The CPB also marks an escalation in what Robert S. McElvaine has called “Grand Theft Jesus”—the appropriation of the Christian tradition for political ends. Is Schlafly a profoundly cynical politician, attempting to manipulate religion in a way that would put Machiavelli and Karl Rove to shame? Or does he truly believe that the Bible has been tainted by “liberalism” for over a thousand years?

The Jefferson Bible as Precedent

Curiously, the CBP is reminiscent of The Jefferson Bible, written in 1820 by our nation’s third president. Thomas Jefferson felt that the teachings of Jesus had been abused and corrupted by Christians, but that the “genuine” teachings of Jesus were “as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill.” Jefferson removed passages referring to the supernatural, as well as what he considered to be misperceptions by the Gospel writers. Critics accused him of paraphrasing the Bible to suit his own ends. Is Schlafly simply a modern day Jefferson, seeking conservative diamonds in a liberal dung-hill?

Not exactly.

The CBP differs from The Jefferson Bible in at least three respects. First, although Jefferson used religious language in the Declaration of Independence and other writings, his revision of the Bible was a private pursuit: He never allowed The Jefferson Bible to be published during his lifetime. Second, Jefferson recognized that his views were highly unorthodox. By contrast, Schlafly identifies as a practicing Catholic and argues that his reading of the Bible is, in fact, orthodox. Finally, the nature of the revisions is fundamentally different. The Jefferson Bible rejects supernaturalism as well as the tenets of Calvinism.

However, Schlafly’s projects—Conservapedia and the CBP—do not seek to combat specific ideologies so much as a species called “liberals.” Conservapedia defines a “liberal” as “someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.” In this world, liberals are incapable of understanding the Bible, or even logical thought. Where Jefferson excluded doctrines from his Bible, the CBP seeks to exclude words. “Accountability,” for instance, is a conservative word that enriches understanding of scripture. “Laborer,” on the other hand, is a liberal word and has no place in the Bible.

“Young girl”? How about “floozy,” “bimbo,” or “temptress”?

So how is the new translation proceeding? As of October 11, the completed “translations” on Conservapedia include Mark 1-8, Matthew 1-9, Luke 1-2, John 1-3, Philemon, and a few verses from Genesis, 1 John, Jude, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. As for the Hebrew Bible, only Genesis appears to be slated for translation. Calling the works in question “translations” may be a misnomer since work with Greek originals seems to be intermittent at best. For the most part, the changes are simply re-phrasings of passages from the King James Version.

Where commentary has been made on the Greek, it typically reflects a rudimentary and sometimes distorted understanding of the language. For example, the only mention of any Greek in the translation of the Gospel of Mark 1-8 comes in verse 6:22, where the “translators” have argued that korasion, which means “young girl” or “maiden,” should be translated as “floozy,” “bimbo,” or “temptress”—despite the fact that this translation has no historical, philological, or textual basis. In fact, Mark uses the same word in 5:41, in reference to a young girl whom Jesus raises from the dead.

Such an open approach to translation will likely offend conservative and fundamentalist proponents of “biblical inerrancy,” the theory that the Bible is God’s inspired word and that only the literal meaning of the text is valid. Some comments on the talk pages for the project already reflect a tension among conservative readers along these lines, with the critics referring, for example, to Revelation 22:19’s injunction not to “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.” One comment from the blogosphere said of the CBP, “Let them rewrite the Bible. It is deemed a sin to add or take away from the Good Book, so those wanting to rewrite will find their own brimstone and hellfire soon enough.”

In their interpretive procedures and principles, however, participants in the CBP do not reject biblical inerrantist or originalist rhetoric. On the contrary, they see themselves as restoring the text to its original state. The project’s authors maintain, for example, that there are three “sources of error” in modern translations of the Bible. Along with bias in modern translations and the “lack of precision in the modern language,” they point to the inadequacy of the original language of the texts in rendering the “powerful new concepts” introduced by Christianity.

This can result in the somewhat paradoxical claim that the meaning of the text is insufficient to convey its clear meaning. Hence, for instance, the following conversation between a critical commentator, who takes issue with the historical and philological accuracy of the translation of “korasion,” and Andy Schlafly:

    The trouble with that example is, we already know what “κορασιων” means—it means “little girl,” the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn’t want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms—they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means “little girl” instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he meant to say? That’s not creating an unbiased translation, that’s shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God?
    —Jere7my 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

    Fine, κορασιων means “little girl,” but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the “rich, complex” Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we’re not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.
    —Andy Schlafly 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Since the text does not say that the dance was provocative, Schlafly’s argument that the author’s intended meaning is “obvious” begs the question, “obvious to whom?” On the talk page, one contributor offers an answer, of sorts, to this question: “THE BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE,” he writes, and, as such, “conservatives” will know what it originally meant.

Pharisee = Liberal

Whether or not Biblical inerrantists accept the idea that Andy Schlafly and other like-minded individuals are the true guardians of the original meaning, the CBP is sure to strike historically-minded scholars and readers as problematic. In addition to making unfounded claims about the author of the gospel of Mark’s feelings about young girls, the translators maintain that “unclean spirit” should be translated as “Satan,” that “cast lots,” should be translated as “gambling,” that “holy spirit,” should be translated “divine guide,” and that logos, or “word,” should be translated “truth.”

Some of the translators have even suggested that the title “Pharisee” should be translated as “elite,” “self-proclaimed elite,” “intellectual,” or “liberal.” On the main page of the project, the guidelines suggest that translations should insist on the “logic of Hell… as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell,” ignoring the fact that the modern concept of Hell is a post-biblical conflation of motifs from a number of sometimes conflicting biblical and apocryphal notions of sheol, gehenna, Hades, judgment in the end-times, etc.

More starkly anachronistic are claims that Jesus taught parables about the “free market” (a late-medieval concept at best), and that the Bible includes “later-inserted liberal passages.” In describing the project, Schlafly has repeatedly cited two such “liberal” passages: the story of Jesus saving an adulteress from being stoned in John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 23:34, where Jesus asks God to forgive his crucifiers, “for they know not what they do.”

Schlafly is right to point out that neither passage is unanimously attested by the earliest ancient manuscripts. Many people don’t realize that the New Testament that they can read today (in the NIV or KJV, for example) is actually based on a collation of diverse ancient texts. During the course of copying and transmitting the gospels, Acts, letters, and Revelations throughout antiquity, scribes made small errors and “corrections,” including additions to and subtractions from the texts that they copied, resulting in sometimes markedly different versions of what are now well-known passages.

In addition to Luke 23:34 and John 7:53-8:11, other famously disputed passages include the “only-begotten God” or “only-begotten son” of John 1:18, the “bloody sweat” of Luke 22:43-44, the number six hundred sixty-six in Revelation 13, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (which enjoins women to be silent in church). One of the main reasons for differences between newer translations of the Bible and the KJV is that the latter does not consistently reflect what scholars now believe to be the earliest and best ancient manuscripts. Conservative Christian groups usually oppose text-critical analysis of the manuscripts that make up the New Testament, so it is somewhat surprising that the CBP has embraced it.

It's all Greek to Him

Still, Schlafly’s belief that “liberals” added John 7:53-8:11 and Luke 23:34 to the Bible is manifestly ludicrous from a historical point of view. Both texts are already attested by manuscripts in the fourth century, long before modern liberals—or conservatives—were around to pen them. A history of reception of either passage would undoubtedly show that, like every other Bible passage, they have been used by a variety of different groups with different interests in different times and places over the last seventeen centuries or so. Here, as elsewhere, Schlafly displays a remarkable lack of historical knowledge about the Bible for someone who has undertaken to oversee a Bible translation project. He does not appear to personally know any relevant ancient languages, or even what ancient languages make up the Bible. When one commentator on the talk page suggested that the translators should “go back to the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc.,” in translating the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, for example, Schlafly retorted that the Bible was written in Greek, adding that the commentator seemed “unsure in identifying the original language.”

Even leaving aside the question of historical or linguistic accuracy, however, this project presents serious problems for those scholars, ministers, and lay-people concerned with the ethics of intepretation. One would have to question the grounds of understanding young girls to be “temptresses” or “bimbos,” for example, or of excising a passage in which Jesus defends a woman from being stoned to death for adultery because it is too “liberal.” The CBP’s approach stands in stark opposition to that of feminist and other exegetes who have sought to reconsider possible readings of the text on ethical grounds. Such interpreters have typically rejected the positivist search for a unique, original meaning while maintaining a strong degree of philological and historical-critical rigor in their development of ethical interpretations.

The members of the Conservative Bible project have moved precisely in the opposite direction, insisting that they are restoring the original, authentic meaning without having any historical, linguistic, or ethical justifications for their interpretive choices.

The Future of Wiki Translation

Nevertheless, the content of the translations may well change over time, due to the nature of a wiki project. It is conceivable that more knowledgeable readers of the Bible will ultimately contribute to the translation. Already, on the talk page for the project’s home page, certain critical, but sympathetic, commentators have questioned the CBP’s approach to “later inserted liberal texts” on text-critical grounds. In the translation of Mark, some critical contributors appear to have won out in arguing that Pharisee should be “translated” as Pharisee, rather than being changed to “intellectual,” “liberal,” or “elite.” Assuming the editors and contributors respond to such criticisms, the CBP’s transformation could prove interesting for tracing the evolution of a wiki “translation” project of the Bible; it might even wind up, in the far-off future, being the medium for a sophisticated, conservatively-oriented version of the Bible.

Whether it does or not, however, the use of wiki technology suggests a new, and potentially more democratic, medium for other translation projects. The CBP could act as a model for any of those communities, Christian or otherwise, who feel that their interests are not sufficiently represented by current editions of the Bible.

One could easily imagine anarchist or Satanist “translations” of the Bible, or sophisticated translations of the Bible by groups who have been marginalized by mainstream Christianity. It could also act as a model for forms of literary experimentation, for a “translation” of biblical texts into the genres of science fiction or fantasy, for instance. As it stands right now, the only other wiki Bible translation project of which we are aware (which preceded the CBP by a few years, and which follows the same practice of rephrasing modern, English editions of the Bible) is the LOLCAT Bible Translation Project, which aims to translate scripture into “lolspeak” or “Kitty Pidgin English.”

[Highland]

The King James already has thousands of miss translations from the previous Dewey Rheims bible and the book of Tobias and some other books are removed. One difference is Peace on earth and goodwill towards men is changed from,  peace on earth to men of good will.

[Dok]

The King James already has thousands of miss translations from the previous Dewey Rheims bible and the book of Tobias and some other books are removed. One difference is Peace on earth and goodwill towards men is changed from,  peace on earth to men of good will.

The KJV did not come from the Dewey Rheims. Get your facts straight. 

[rawiron1]

Protestants complain that the Catholics have "changed" The Bible when they themselves have done the SAME thing.  The Bible says not to add or take away.  They did this when they came up with the KJV.  They dropped some of the books from the Bible.  Broke their own rules and the Bible's rules when they did this.  Jesus!  I get tired of the hypocrisy!

Jason

[Dok]

Protestants complain that the Catholics have "changed" The Bible when they themselves have done the SAME thing.  The Bible says not to add or take away.  They did this when they came up with the KJV.  They dropped some of the books from the Bible.  Broke their own rules and the Bible's rules when they did this.  Jesus!  I get tired of the hypocrisy!

Jason

i love this argument, what books were dropped?

[larsonstdoc]

i love this argument, what books were dropped?

  None.  I have read many versions of the Bible and there is only one that I trust--the KJV.

[jofortruth]

They talk about this in the following video: "A Lamp in the Dark"
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6258
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKsPb_pp9D4


Pinto's Series of Videos is at link above!

[jofortruth]

i love this argument, what books were dropped?

The video above talks about Revelations being removed!

[Dok]

The video above talks about Revelations being removed!

seen the vid. funny how revelations has always been in though.

[jofortruth]

seen the vid. funny how revelations has always been in though.

I guess time will tell. Would be hard to believe the removal of this book would be acceptable!

[John_Back_From_The_Club_O]

Featuring Glenn Beck as the buzz-cut Mosses and Bill O'rielly as the Devil who tempted Jesus.

[wfy9621]

Hard to believe the KJV is considered weak in its wording...What are these people up to? What kind of twisting of the truth?

I have heard there is a move towards something called "Dominionism," where Christians think they can bring in the Kingdom Of Heaven on earth, and on their own. Believe it plans to use the political process, too.

Obviously, this goes against scripture. The danger is you set yourself up for falling for an Antichrist. Could this be what these people are up to? It would certainly enrich their political lives if they could herd the Christians behind them...

[agentbluescreen]

I guess time will tell. Would be hard to believe the removal of this book would be acceptable!

Indeed removing the Great Whore of Babylon's cookbook is definitely out. We should expect more modern and accurate legalese however:

EG:

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." - Colossians 4:1 (KJV)

Masters, give unto your servants that which ye may (from time to time) inflate and devalue; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." - Colossians 4:1 (Rash Limp-bow Version)

[Valerius]

Rev 22:18-19
"18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

 19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

[Valerius]

I'm not going to go into religious debate, I'm not skilled for it. But I don't see how any Christian can not see a tribulation around the corner.

[America2]

Hard to believe the KJV is considered weak in its wording...What are these people up to? What kind of twisting of the truth?

I have heard there is a move towards something called "Dominionism," where Christians think they can bring in the Kingdom Of Heaven on earth, and on their own. Believe it plans to use the political process, too.

Obviously, this goes against scripture. The danger is you set yourself up for falling for an Antichrist. Could this be what these people are up to? It would certainly enrich their political lives if they could herd the Christians behind them...

The only people pushing for Dominionism are these so-called evangelicals who get TONS of AIRTIME - Robertson, James Dobson, the late Falwell, Haggard(before he got caught with his pants down, that is), Sarah Palin, Rick Joyner, Warren, and pretty much every person that the NWO MSM gives tons of attention to. The NWO is very anti-Christianity, so I'm not surprised they use plants to disguise themselves as likewise. I mean after all, the average American, including Christians, gets their "news" from the television, right? So if, let's say, FOX News says how Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell are godly men, they must be, right?

This is what I love about the internet - ONLY place where you can find TRUTH(in addition to your KJV bibles, of course).

Oh - aren't alot of today's seminaries founded by Freemasons, and aren't they 501c3s?

[America2]

seen the vid. funny how revelations has always been in though.

In the NIV bible - they replaced "in" with "upon" when they talk about the mark of the beast in Rev 13. In the KJV, they say the mark of the beast will be IN and hand or IN the forehead, but not in those other perverted versions.

I mean this is gonna be where the big deceptions are - in the tribulation, your 501c3 pastor which uses NIV/NLT bibles may say something like, "But the word of god says on the hand, so taking the microchip is harmless. And with the tatoo being the Star of David that we've seen on the Israel flag, because Israel is God's chosen land, I don't see what's wrong either with putting that particular tatoo on your hand. So maybe this isn't the mark of the beast after all, and maybe Maitreya(or whoever this AC is) is a good guy".

With the latter portion of the quote above - that 6 pointed star on the Israel flag is NOT this "Star of David", it's actually the SEAL OF SOLOMON(who, of course, fell away late in his life). That 6 pointed hexagram symbol is THE HIGHEST occult symbol - Blavatsky used it in her Theosophy deceptions.

[Highland]

The KJV did not come from the Dewey Rheims. Get your facts straight. 

The Dewey Rheims bible was the previous version in use and does not have a large amount of change over the 1700 years since the bible was assembled. A lot of radical manipulation abuse and dysfunctional tribal warfare population control was done to the human population over these years.

 These deals where one person is jumping up and claiming he is the lone one to find the lost tablets etc. and he has gained knowledge of over 100000 true rules and regulations of life are bogus and they are not going to improve on the situation in my opinion.

[Dok]

The Dewey Rheims bible was the previous version in use and does not have a large amount of change over the 1700 years since the bible was assembled. A lot of radical manipulation abuse and dysfunctional tribal warfare population control was done to the human population over these years.

 These deals where one person is jumping up and claiming he is the lone one to find the lost tablets etc. and he has gained knowledge of over 100000 true rules and regulations of life are bogus and they are not going to improve on the situation in my opinion.

The DR was not used as a basis for the KJV. Wasn't even consulted.

A lot of radical manipulation abuse and dysfunctional tribal warfare population control was done to the human population over these years.

ya, by the makers and supporters of the DR, the catholic church.

[Amos]

The DR was not used as a basis for the KJV. Wasn't even consulted.

ya, by the makers and supporters of the DR, the catholic church.

its amazing, just how completely uninformed people are (even on this forum), 911 was and inside job should have put there antennas up to all that the world offers, the problems, is people don't read the debunking of the debunking, they just move to the next argumentail question, there questions have been answered and re-answered, it is like they don't want to know the truth

they just run off the mouth, their catholic indoctrination is functioning, even if they don't claim to be catholic

[tinfoiltruth]

I think one of the big things to remember when it comes to bible translations is the simplicity of the English language compared to the complexity of the Greek, and Hebrew that the original text's where written in.

Greek and Hebrew have much more descriptive words to explain things and situations. those same words would take 5-7 different English words for someone to understand that one Greek or Hebrew word.

that's why when you study with a English bible it is always important to reference not only the original words of text used(Greek, Hebrew) but to find the context of when it was written. Just like English has slang so did they back in the time. Cool has gone from meaning temperature to being a status a person can achieve. these will bring greater clarification to almost every scripture.

[Amos]

I think one of the big things to remember when it comes to bible translations is the simplicity of the English language compared to the complexity of the Greek, and Hebrew that the original text's where written in.

Greek and Hebrew have much more descriptive words to explain things and situations. those same words would take 5-7 different English words for someone to understand that one Greek or Hebrew word.

that's why when you study with a English bible it is always important to reference not only the original words of text used(Greek, Hebrew) but to find the context of when it was written. Just like English has slang so did they back in the time. Cool has gone from meaning temperature to being a status a person can achieve. these will bring greater clarification to almost every scripture.

wrong, another jesuit trick to redefine the bible

[tinfoiltruth]

wrong, another jesuit trick to redefine the bible

are you serious?

God wrote the text through the disciples in there original tongue which was Greek and Hebrew. Not English. there will always be something lost in translation.

look how some Chinese signs are translated to English. if you believe the English bible is perfect or is the complete true text you are missing out on alot of what God is trying to relay through the text.

[Amos]

are you serious?

God wrote the text through the disciples in there original tongue which was Greek and Hebrew. Not English. there will always be something lost in translation.

look how some Chinese signs are translated to English. if you believe the English bible is perfect or is the complete true text you are missing out on alot of what God is trying to relay through the text.

You have one choice either you believe God or you don’t he doesn’t not allow you to wear your shoes before the burning brush, you take off your wisdom and get on your face , listen to what he says or you are going to miss out on what he got for you, you come to the feast without his garment you are going to get bond and cast out, it is by his grace your are saved

[agentbluescreen]

Nothing ever changes, more of the same, nothing to see, move along.

The noble neo-Amun Priesthood overlords have gotta keep their Slavery Manuals up to date.

[Amos]

Nothing ever changes, more of the same, nothing to see, move along.

You've gotta keep your Slavery Manuals up to date.

caught in the paradigm, and you see not the cage you look out from

[tinfoiltruth]

You have one choice either you believe God or you don’t he doesn’t not allow you to wear your shoes before the burning brush, you take off your wisdom and get on your face listen, to what he says or you are going to miss out on what he got for you, you come to the feast without his garment you are going to get bond and cast out, it is by his grace your are saved

Totally agree with that statement Amos.

and understanding the texts that God has given us gives us a better ability to listen to the Holy Spirit.

[Amos]

to you mean the Holy Ghost

[Amos]

Totally agree with that statement Amos.

and understanding the texts that God has given us gives us a better ability to listen to the Holy Spirit.

i know to agree with your adversary quickly but, you sound like just another Catholicised Protestant

[tinfoiltruth]

to you mean the Holy Ghost

the Definition of Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are the same. From my understanding.

I usually use Holy spirit. But KJV translates it to Holy Ghost. not really meaning to argue about this but it does show how translation is important.

"Pneuma" is the Greek word for spirit and is used in the new testament. and is why I use Holy Spirit.

i know to agree with your adversary quickly but, you sound like just another Catholicised Protestant

understand, But I am anything but. Catholicism in my opinion is why we have so many sheeple in the USA. 

[H0llyw00d]

Fakes writing Fake books....no big deal
Maybe they can come up w/ a better storyline...

[Amos]

the Definition of Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are the same. From my understanding.

I usually use Holy spirit. But KJV translates it to Holy Ghost. not really meaning to argue about this but it does show how translation is important.

"Pneuma" is the Greek word for spirit and is used in the new testament. and is why I use Holy Spirit.

understand, But I am anything but. Catholicism in my opinion is why we have so many sheeple in the USA. 

sorry tin, but you have been catholicised, the Holy Bible uses holy spirit, holy Spirit, and Holy Spirit, also but they don't mean the Holy Ghost, if you would quit trusting in men's precepts you get your own concept straight from the Word of God through his word and his word alone

[Amos]

Fakes writing Fake books....no big deal
Maybe they can come up w/ a better storyline...

sorry it is the BIG DEAL

how do you suppose you got decieved

[agentbluescreen]

You have one choice either you believe God or you don’t he doesn’t not allow you to wear your shoes before the burning brush, you take off your wisdom and get on your face , listen to what he says or you are going to miss out on what he got for you, you come to the feast without his garment you are going to get bond and cast out, it is by his grace your are saved

You mean of course The Parentage, Our true Motherhood and Fatherhood of All That Is, The Union of The Risen and the Submerged Forms, The I Shall Be that I Shall Be, The Unity of All Loveliness and All Belovedness Themselves, Itself, The All Itself? Right?

What would a ridiculous humanly-contrived noble "human he-god" do with "his" supposed dinky?

I could answer the question above, but the noble Levitican Amun Priesthood Fascisti already did  after they successfully imprisoned "him" (so "he" could speak to Them alone) and opened up their burnt-offering soul wash temple-business...

None of the noble Levitican Tent of Meeting Sin Tax Act is the word of any "he-god".

The flagrant abuse of the ancient paternalistic, misogynistic term "father" (and it's noble-fascist "lord" equivalent) in the ancient languages refers to the word we know of today as "Parentage"

ROTFLMAO

Jesus said, "Come unto me, for my yoke is easy and my lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourselves."

They are Our true, eternal Family and Home

[Dok]

You mean of course The Parentage, Our true Motherhood and Fatherhood of All That Is, The Union of The Risen and the Submerged Forms, The I Shall Be that I Shall Be, The Unity of All Loveliness and All Belovedness Themselves, Itself, The All Itself? Right?

What would a ridiculous humanly-contrived noble he-god do with "his" supposed dinky?

I could answer the question above, but the noble Levitican Amun Priesthood Fascisti already did  after they successfully imprisoned "him" (so "he" could speak to Them alone) and opened up their burnt-offering soul wash temple-business...

None of the noble Levitican Tent of Meeting Sin Tax Act is the word of any "he-god".

The use of the ancient paternalistic, misogynistic term "father" in the ancient languages refers to the word we know of today as "Parentage"

ROTFLMAO

you keep laughing.

[Amos]

You mean of course The Parentage, Our true Motherhood and Fatherhood of All That Is, The Union of The Risen and the Submerged Forms, The I Shall Be that I Shall Be, The Unity of All Loveliness and All Belovedness Themselves, Itself, The All Itself? Right?

What would a ridiculous humanly-contrived noble he-god do with "his" supposed dinky?

I could answer the question above, but the noble Levitican Amun Priesthood Fascisti already did  after they successfully imprisoned "him" (so "he" could speak to Them alone) and opened up their burnt-offering soul wash temple-business...

Non of the Levitican Tent of Meeting Sin Tax Act is the word of any "he-god".

The use of the ancient paternalistic, misogynistic term "father" in the ancient languages refers to the word we know of today as "Parentage"

ROTFLMAO

bule, you are caught it the trap of being re-defined, what you believe is because how you are defined, so you don't even see yourself

[tinfoiltruth]

sorry tin, but you have been catholicised, the Holy Bible uses holy spirit, holy Spirit, and Holy Spirit, also but they don't mean the Holy Ghost, if you would quit trusting in men's precepts you get your own concept straight from the Word of God through his word and his word alone

its why  I study the text. cause inherently humans are evil. and also wrong alot of the time. its why I have a hard time believing you on your word Amos. But I will for sure spend more time in prayer about the subject.

[Amos]

its why  I study the text. cause inherently humans are evil. and also wrong alot of the time. its why I have a hard time believing you on your word Amos. But I will for sure spend more time in prayer about the subject.

ok that's fair, but quit your study and start searching the scriptures, your own wisdom (understanding) will mis-lead you, the study you should set yourself on is to rightly divide the word of truth, it is not NIV, NAS, RV, etc... its not the Greek, the Hebrew, ... if you study you will find it is the King James Bible the Authorized Version

[agentbluescreen]

ok that's fair, but quit your study and start searching the scriptures, your own wisdom (understanding) will mis-lead you, the study you should set yourself on is to rightly divide the word of truth, it is not NIV, NAS, RV, etc... its not the Greek, the Hebrew, ... if you study you will find it is the King James Bible the Authorized Version

The Homosexual Warlord James version of the Constantinian-Paulinist Slavery Manuals?

Your "divine family" is a gay old hell-owning warlord on a throne with a noble palace-dungeon system run by his ugly boyfriend Lucifer?

Corporate Episcopalism is the opposite of Christianity

Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents (shy and suspicious of their hateful corporate machinations) and as innocent (bold and outgoing in loving personal charitability) as doves."

[tinfoiltruth]

The Homosexual Warlord James version of the Constantinian-Paulinist Slavery Manuals?

Corporate Episcopalism is the opposite of Christianity

Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents (shy and suspicious of their hateful corporate machinations) and as innocent (bold and outgoing in loving personal charitability) as doves.[/font][/color]"

what Verse is that?