The Religion Discussion

[sMASH]

ok, look QG interested, so apparently he learning sumthing.

continue...

[Kasey]

in islam, we are not taught that women are equal to men, men and women are not equals. men and women, generally have different traits, abilities, tendencies, etc. so are not created equal'Equal' and 'exact' are two different words eh, when equal is used here it may mean respect-wise, not physical-wise.. but this is not saying that women are lesser to men. u say that in hinduism, some treatment of women neared worship, this is nearly placing women greater than menI dont think this means that they are placing women greater than men dude, or even 'nearly' for that matter, it means that it is positioning them for equal respect. we do not teach that women are greater than men. we learn from islam, that women and men were created differently, so treatment must be fair to what they demonstrate. so the term equity is usedbut isnt 'equity' derived from 'equal'?. both are different, and generally intended to perform differing

I dont think darkman was really meaning that hinduism say that men and women are equals (or exact), (it is common sense that men and women are different and Hinduism acknowledges that), but rather that Hinduism teaches that men and women DESERVE equal respect and rights.

[d spike]

for certain reasons I cannot explain where it comes from ,, but you can find references of it if you know where to look.

but i will say this,, Jerome,, Latin circa 450 CE.. the Vulgate "Vatican Library"

-Bishop John Shelby Spong

If a statement is made regarding claimed facts, but the source/proof of those facts cannot be stated, then the first thought that springs to mind is that such claims are fictitious - megadoc's claims of supernatural power are a perfect example of this.
While I know what it is like to prefer not to discuss certain matters on a public forum such as this, such matters pertain to me and my personal life, and I wish to lead a private life. Where information is concerned, if I cannot substantiate a claim I wish to make, due to not being able to access the source material (or remember it ) I will state this, and give clear directions to whoever wishes to locate it.
"but you can find references of it if you know where to look" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. It is a hooded, condescending and self-aggrandizing way of belittling the reader who has no idea of what you are claiming.
As you claim that English is not your original tongue, I will readily assume that such an implication was furthest from your mind when you typed this.

I have studied the early Christian church, and I have never come across such a peculiar claim regarding the choice of books.

Jerome died in late September, 450 AD. The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin version of the Bible, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations. Jerome finished his work in late 404 or 405. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.. This translation is still available, so I am not sure why you used the phrase, "Vatican Library"...

The Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa. For the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canon (including the books classed as deuterocanonical books). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage.

The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

In light of all this, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out how your hint regarding your unmentionable information is supposed to make sense, bearing in mind that most of these books WERE ALREADY ACCEPTED by Christians. These proclamations simply were a formal affair regarding scripture that was in use by the church at the time.


I dare say that your choice of reference is remarkable. Excerpts from Wikipedia regarding the gentleman are as follows:

Bishop John Shelby Spong is an retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church. He calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief, away from theism and from such doctrines and practices as prayer.

Spong's ideas have received strong criticism from some other theologians, notably the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (when Williams was the Bishop of Monmouth), describing his 'twelve theses' as embodying "confusion and misinterpretation."

[d spike]

God has been subjected to both mescaline and feminine forms to show this.

Drugs and women??!?! Now that's what I call a REAL religion! Sign me up!!

[996vtwin]

Interesting read guys. One of my favorite encounters with God.One night, some time ago I found myself painfully walking down the road alone as I was pondering many of life's problems that were troubling me. I was deep in thought and noticed my left foot ws scrubbing off skin. The troubles of that night found me walking barefoot you see.

I was so troubled that I never stopped to thnk about it althought it was bugging me. I just had so many things on my mind.

I continued walking down the road to my destination until soon after I stumbled on a left side of a slipper. immediately I thought of God and gave thanks and put on the slippers. God takes care of all of us and never gives us more than we can handle.

[Rory Phoulorie]

...I continued walking down the road to my destination until soon after I stumbled on a left side of a slipper. immediately I thought of God and gave thanks and put on the slippers. God takes care of all of us and never gives us more than we can handle.

It wouldn't have happened to be the left side of an Airwalk flip flop? I can't seem to find mine anywhere.

[sMASH]

he took the left side from somebody in africa and give u?

[Kasey]

Interesting read guys. One of my favorite encounters with God.One night, some time ago I found myself painfully walking down the road alone as I was pondering many of life's problems that were troubling me. I was deep in thought and noticed my left foot ws scrubbing off skin. The troubles of that night found me walking barefoot you see.

I was so troubled that I never stopped to thnk about it althought it was bugging me. I just had so many things on my mind.

I continued walking down the road to my destination until soon after I stumbled on a left side of a slipper. immediately I thought of God and gave thanks and put on the slippers. God takes care of all of us and never gives us more than we can handle.

guess 100% of those ppl in haiti and africa and slums in India can handle it?

[mamoo_pagal]

Interesting read guys. One of my favorite encounters with God.One night, some time ago I found myself painfully walking down the road alone as I was pondering many of life's problems that were troubling me. I was deep in thought and noticed my left foot ws scrubbing off skin. The troubles of that night found me walking barefoot you see.

I was so troubled that I never stopped to thnk about it althought it was bugging me. I just had so many things on my mind.

I continued walking down the road to my destination until soon after I stumbled on a left side of a slipper. immediately I thought of God and gave thanks and put on the slippers. God takes care of all of us and never gives us more than we can handle.

guess 100% of those ppl in haiti and africa and slums in India can handle it?

yup guess they "angered" him.......don't forget the heathens in Taiwand. I guess we should be glad for the folks in europe and america who possess the divine wisdom to not anger him!!
Blessed are they....

[Kasey]

^^yup, America is full of only angel-like ppl who deserve only the best.

Example: Paris Hilton doesnt deserve hardship cause she is a very good person and cannot handle 'bad' times.

[mamoo_pagal]

OMFG..........oh no you didn't.

Paris is an angel sent from (...............................)

Please don't speak of her in that tone she is the "saviour" of so many people. We want to be like her. dress like her, speak like her, look like her, sing her songs, have pictures of her in our rooms, dream of her, idolize her.......but wait nothing is wrong with that because she is not a false idol
(that is reserved for the Hindu heathes)
So it's A OK!!!!

[Kasey]

I think we on the right page.

[dark_lord_tnt]

the fact that u said muslim men can have 7 wives, is wrong, they can have up to 4, where 1 wife is the instruction but up to 4 is a permission. but ur point is noted of men having more spouses than women. the rationale behind that would be viewed as interpretation just like ur post there, and lends itself easily to argument.

Yes Quite Correct , 7 Virgins are the reward for one who dies through Jihad (I forgot the proper term)

u had an opportunity to show that u know the good and the bad of the religions, but u stressed only on the popular bad to prove ur point, and the ancient good only to prove ur point.
if u have knowledge, share it.

I never said islam was bad, infact i did never say anything bad about it, I simply stated what i needed to to prove my point,

ur facts seem to be biased, skewed, limited, sometimes wrong. i can tolerate that, as i am forgiving, but ur intentions for stating any thing at all, i have a problem with. u are bashing here, i have no problem with that, as long as some one learns sumthing, or some one benefits somehow. but i dont see us being enlightened by ur posts. some people here post because they showing their religion as best they can, some people here showing them what what they talkin dont make sense and they should turn it down a notch because not every body sees it the way they do. some people come to put us in our places after being over zealous and condemning others. we learn sumthing at the end.
with ur posts, i just seeing bashing. not to teach, not to guide, but to demonstrate that some one has great number of facts. in my opinion, ur contributions are not well intended and may be just to get attention.

I never said women are oppressed by Islam.. The point was quality..

and ur much valued knowledge base,,,, it needs increasing.

ok if such is your belief who am i to argue ??

If a statement is made regarding claimed facts, but the source/proof of those facts cannot be stated, then the first thought that springs to mind is that such claims are fictitious - megadoc's claims of supernatural power are a perfect example of this.

Fictitious NO.. But I guess I should not have posted that knowing I will be unable to institute reference to it.

Jerome died in late September, 450 AD. The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin version of the Bible, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations. Jerome finished his work in late 404 or 405. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.. This translation is still available, so I am not sure why you used the phrase, "Vatican Library"...

Your on the right part though I guess u just need to figure out what Jerome and The Vatican Archives Have in Common..

The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

Your forgot 2 things. That Revelation means revealing and Apocalypse actually is encryption of hidden meaning leading to the revelation.


Any way this was my last post on the forum, I forgot why I etopped in the first place until i was reminded of such.. So you all have a happy Christmas, It was nice.. bye..

[Kasey]

^^before u go, whay country are you from?

[dark_lord_tnt]

Oh i almost forgot,,

"It is interesting to note that in scholarly Muslim journals, there is beginning to be a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are variant and conflicting readings on the text of the Quran" (One example would be Saleh al-Wahaihu, "A Study of Seven Quranic Variants," International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Vol. V (1989), #2, pp. 1-57).

@ spike this is what you know according to McDowell

1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Was it received, collected, read and used?

(what makes it authentic)? jerome ? vatican library letter ..

[sMASH]

do u believe hawkins is a madman?

[QG]

..................

[d spike]

If a statement is made regarding claimed facts, but the source/proof of those facts cannot be stated, then the first thought that springs to mind is that such claims are fictitious - megadoc's claims of supernatural power are a perfect example of this.

Fictitious NO.. But I guess I should not have posted that knowing I will be unable to institute reference to it.
And why is this? Is it that it is just a supposition on your part based on your experiences, rather than what actually existed? History is full of remarkable facts that can be used to lighten one's dialogue... you don't need to go and invent any more.

Jerome died in late September, 450 AD. The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin version of the Bible, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations. Jerome finished his work in late 404 or 405. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.. This translation is still available, so I am not sure why you used the phrase, "Vatican Library"...

Your on the right part though I guess u just need to figure out what Jerome and The Vatican Archives Have in Common..
I guess you just need to figure out that you say this on the grand assumption that I believe you know what you are talking about. Jerome is considered as one of the "Doctors" of the RC faith, and as such, information about him would be held dear by the RC boys, and stored safely in whatever archives they have.
Clearly, the books that were accepted by the Early Church, as stated before, were ALREADY ACCEPTED by the majority of the church's members already. Early undisputed church writings show this clearly. Jerome translated ALREADY ACCEPTED scripture. With the exception of the Hebrew gospel, what he considered scripture was already considered as such. You have not even suggested how Jerome could have possibly influenced the choice of what was or was not included in the bible.

The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

Your forgot 2 things. That Revelation means revealing and Apocalypse actually is encryption of hidden meaning leading to the revelation.
You fail to realise 2 things: (1) Both names are used to refer to the same writing; and (2) Your zeal to uncover hidden things is leading you to see things that aren't there.

Cheers
Don't drink too much when you go paranging.

[d spike]

@ spike this is what you know according to McDowell

1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Was it received, collected, read and used?

(what makes it authentic)? jerome ? vatican library letter ..

Actually, THIS is what I know. (And the fact that Christians had already accepted these books as authentic, and all the council/synod did was to approve them... this is sufficient authentication for me.)

The Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa. For the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canon (including the books classed as deuterocanonical books). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage.

The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

Please recall that the scriptures were already translated into Latin before Jerome's translation existed. You actually imply that Jerome chose and presented work for acceptance into the codex we call the bible. Long before Jerome, many of these books were grouped as "scripture" as part of a "canon". The gathering of Church nobs simply was their nod of approval. No "new" books appeared and got stuck in with the others... all were known and accepted by many. And so I ask most politely again:

perhaps you would be so kind as to point out how your hint regarding your unmentionable information is supposed to make sense, bearing in mind that most of these books WERE ALREADY ACCEPTED by Christians. These proclamations simply were a formal affair regarding scripture that was in use by the church at the time.

[dark_lord_tnt]

I dont invent things..

He commissionedfrom St Jerome a standard Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. It replaced the existing Vetus Latina, and translated from the original Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint.

from Jerome, returning letter.

"You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invitejudging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger,f, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us"


the rest of the 177 page document goes into more detail. (128 pages are that of the Gospel Of Light, yeah it was there before it was re founded in the dead sea scrolls)

In It he makes reference to the rules regarding canonization and the same accorded to him. The letter Is currently Locked in Vault 874 Of the New Age Cati-cal Collection If Sacred Text.. Letters Dated.

How can I tell you something or prove something you have no way of knowing ?? There are references of this letter In The Encyclopedia's but no translation. And now your going to ask me how I know of This and again tell me I'm creating things. So I'll stop there..

Just cause you dont know something doesnt mean its isnt there this is just a translation of the first paragraph..

You all remind me of the scientist of the time of Christopher Columbus. " Even a child know that if the world was as round as an orange the people on the other side would simply fall off " Peoples knowledge of that time was limited by what they know and refuse to listen to that of people who might actually know something they don't like say, Issiac Newton or Thomas Edison. Now I'm not saying that I know more than you or anything like that, but that I HAD access to a lot more information than most of you do. And again you will ask what proof I have of that. This topic has strayed from understand man religion and God and to gather understanding to a piss fight Everyone believing what the thinks is real and forgot to see that there can be more.

I am not a Muslim or Hindu and can no longer be called a Catholic or Christian. I do believe in God, I do believe in a lot of things but I don't believe in argument, insults and offending anyone. I appreciate and argumentative debate but when it turns to a piss fight Its not the same. Similar to the attacking and so stupid comments that I know are not what you say but unable to prove (yes I have the means to but I am restricted). Time and time again it turns out to you believe what you will and let the congregation prosper. Now i ask this, if you cant try to at least listen to something that constricts what you believe ? How can u recognize a Messiah when such arrives ?? Will you be like the Jew still waiting On Jesus Or the Muslims Still waiting on the return of the prophet ? Or the 2012 believers thinking the MAYAN Dragon GOD (rainbow serpent) will end the 5012 year reign of the men of Corn and begin that of the men of Light (december 21 2012) ,, or even the new House Of YAWA belief that the world is going to end March 15 2011 ?? (some kind of calculation again involving the flood and Jesus and devils reign etc,, didnt pay much attention).. Any way I said that was my last, looks like i was in error but now i offer nothing more..

[d spike]

I dont invent things..
Says you. For all we know, you could be a verbose 15 year-old with a reading impairment.
But seriously, you make a claim, refuse to back it up, and expect all to accept your anonymous 'word'? Please... be adult about it. If you claim something as fantastic as this without proof, what common sensical reaction did you expect?
And to come with this infantile remark: "Just cause you dont know something doesnt mean its isnt there..." After reading a few of my posts, you should know better than that.

I'm not asking you to reveal any private matter... just show where such claims arose.

He commissionedfrom St Jerome a standard Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. It replaced the existing Vetus Latina, and translated from the original Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint.

from Jerome, returning letter.

"You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invitejudging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger,f, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us"

[Hebrew > Greek > Latin].

the rest of the 17 page document goes into more detail.

In It he makes reference to the rules regarding canonization and the same accorded to him. The letter Is currently Locked in Vault 874 Of the New Age Catical Collection If Sacred Text Letters Dated.

How can I tell you something or prove something you have no way of knowing ?? There are references of this letter In The Encyclopedia's but no translation. And now your going to ask me how I know of This and again tell me I'm creating things. So I'll stop there..
"How can I tell you something or prove something you have no way of knowing ??" Stop being so condescending. Which "Encyclopedia"? You have no idea of what I can access - stop assuming that my reach is shorter than yours... this is not a pissing competition.

Anyone who studied Jerome can tell you that his personality was not a gentle and submissive one. He and St. Paul had a lot in common.
Your excerpt simply shows his thoughts on being asked to undertake the translation by Pope Damasus 1.
Jerome was a strong-willed scholar, who, unlike most others of his peers, including Augustine, preferred the Hebrew scriptures to the newer Greek ones. His remonstrations show his awareness of the opposition he would be facing... which wasn't new to him, either.

Obviously, you seem to have a translation of the document.
Your displaying this excerpt shows clearly that such a matter is capable on your part.
"In It he makes reference to the rules regarding canonization and the same accorded to him. The letter Is currently Locked in Vault 874 Of the New Age Catical Collection If Sacred Text Letters Dated.
Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce the rest of it, or more importantly, the part that you constantly allude to... unless you can't translate it... or you only know of this excerpt... or it doesn't refer to such a matter after all... either way, the conclusion is the same.

Just cause you dont know something doesnt mean its isnt there this is just a translation of the first paragraph..

You all remind me of the scientist of the time of Christopher Columbus. " Even a child know that if the world was as round as an orange the people on the other side would simply fall off " Peoples knowledge of that time was limited by what they know and refuse to listen to that of people who might actually know something they don't like say, Issiac Newton or Thomas Edison.
It's interesting that you should mention this... says a lot. Most educated people in Columbus' time were aware that the earth was a globe - it was the dimensions that were in error. This errant belief that Columbus' peers were of the opinion that the world was flat was actually propagated by a writer whose work was quite well-written (except for that part ) and well-read by the turn of the century.
Ignoring original material and inventing fanciful material that just "sounds right" is a problem... as you have shown.

Now I'm not saying that I know more than you or anything like that, but that I HAD access to a lot more information than most of you do.
Self-aggrandizement and condescension does not suit the persona you are attempting to display.
Not all of us are 23 year-olds with stylishly painted Japanese cars. Some of us do or did have access to a great deal of information depending on our past lives - we just prefer to keep such matters and information private. The bottom line is one does not know with whom one is conversing - I would advise humility and a far more diplomatic tone.

And again you will ask what proof I have of that. This topic has strayed from understand man religion and God and to gather understanding to a piss fight Everyone believing what the thinks is real and forgot to see that there can be more.
I agree with most of what you have said. You just need to be mature enough to realise that unfounded claims are precisely that: unfounded claims.
As far as the "piss fight" is concerned, if you had actually read all the previous pages, you would have realised that such a problem isn't new.
Of course everyone believes what they think is real, that is the point of faith, isn't it? Open-mindedness is another matter. All you need to do where this is concerned, is to back up what you say with proof that such is true. Why is this concept a problem for you? I will NOT state my credentials or term of studies here - this is not the place for that. This is a public forum that allows anonymity. Anyone can claim anything about themselves... the only way to maintain an open yet serious dialogue is to not present unfounded claims, that's all.

[megadoc1]

d spike and dark lord have some very interesting posts going on here
a fool like me can only look on and say wow!
don't stop fellas keep it up

oh and mr d spike sir, I heard you used a term some posts aback "justification machinery "
do you mind sharing your thoughts on that? thanks

[dark_lord_tnt]

Dont ask how..



... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed. But the asterisks indicate what has been added to it. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

"And I will move all nations, and the desired One shall come to all nations." [Hag, ii. 7.] In this passage the Septuagint translators giving another sense more suitable to the body than the Head, that is, to the Church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority..

Thats all I'm willing to discuss any further in this matter..

[d spike]

Dont ask how..

... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed.

Whoa... slow down.
1. Who asked why a former translation which you made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked?
2. What canonical book or books did you translate some of? You can't possibly be referring to that excerpt by Jerome... Wait a minute, do you have any idea of what is meant by "canonical"? This, when referring to religious writings, is a group of writings accepted as scripture. Good God, man... just because Jerome wrote it doesn't mean it is considered scripture...

"You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter"?
Are you for real? You clearly don't even know what "canonical" means...
Please revise what you write before you hit the "Submit" button...

In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it.

Where is this posted?

I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world...

And you have come to this supposition... how?

Are you referring to a post that has since been removed? If so, then forgive me, for that is the only logical explanation for these pointed comments that clearly refer to non-existing statements/posts. Otherwise, you are not making sense.

[dark_lord_tnt]

Dont ask how..

... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed.

Whoa... slow down.
1. Who asked why a former translation which you made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked?
2. What canonical book or books did you translate some of? You can't possibly be referring to that excerpt by Jerome... Wait a minute, do you have any idea of what is meant by "canonical"? This, when referring to religious writings, is a group of writings accepted as scripture. Good God, man... just because Jerome wrote it doesn't mean it is considered scripture...

"You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter"?
Are you for real? You clearly don't even know what "canonical" means...
Please revise what you write before you hit the "Submit" button...

In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it.

Where is this posted?

I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world...

And you have come to this supposition... how?

Are you referring to a post that has since been removed? If so, then forgive me, for that is the only logical explanation for these pointed comments that clearly refer to non-existing statements/posts. Otherwise, you are not making sense.

LOL,, no no no,,,,, its you who have misunderstood,, That what you have asked me for, The translated portion of the document in correspondence between jerome, and DAüîÇ..

Let me be a bit more detailed.. The translated portion above is one that continues (a few pages after) of the many correspondence of Jerome. I gave a pic of the original in latin and the translated portion below. I should have stated such i apologize..

so the questions you have just posed to me you should ask Jerome..

[Gladiator]

Some interesting reading....

___________________________________________________________________________________


Did the Hindus Help Write the Bible
and Give the Ancient Mexicans Their Religious Traditions?


By Gene D. Matlock, B.A., M.A.

When I was a child, my parents were, for a while, members of a Fundamentalist Christian sect called The Nazarenes. It was not a fun church. I escaped from it at age twelve, just when puberty and interest in girls set in.

Though they tried to make me stay in that church, Mom and Dad could not weaken my determination to leave it. However, I did enjoy a certain short song that all the Nazarene children had to learn by heart: Jesus Loves Me, This I know, for the Bible Tells Me So! Had I known then what I know now, I would've sung it this way: The Bible Comes From India, This I Know, for the Hindu Vedas and Puranas Tell Me So!

The following account, taken from the Hindu Matsya Purana (Fish Chronicle), describes some of the people who, after a severe flood, left India for other parts of the world:

To Satyavarman, that sovereign of the whole earth, were born three sons: the eldest Shem; then Sham; and thirdly, Jyapeti by name.
They were all men of good morals, excellent invirtue and virtuous deeds, skilled in the use of weapons to strike with, or to be thrown; brave men, eager for victory in battle.

But Satyavarman, being continually delighted with devout meditation, and seeing his sons fit for dominuion, laid upon them the burdens of government.

Whilst he remained honouring and satisfying the gods, and priests, and kine, one day, by the act of destiny, the king, having drunk mead

Became senseless and lay asleep naked. Then, was he seen by Sham, and by him were his two brothers called:

To whom he said, "What now has befallen? In what state is this our sire?" By these two he was hidden with clothes, and called to his senses again and again.

Having recovered his intellect, and perfectly knowing what had passed, he cursed Sham, saying, "Thou shalt be the servant of servants."

And since thou wast a laugher in their presence, from laughter thou shalt acquire a name. Then he gave Sham the wide domain on the south of the snowy mountains.

And to Jyapeti he gave all on the north of the snowy mountains; but he, by the power of religious contemplation, attained supreme bliss.


If you have read the Jewish or Christian bible, can you guess who Satyavarman, Shem, Sham, and Jyapeti were? Were Satyavarman and his sons our Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet? The Old Testament tells us that Satyavarman (Noah) got drunk by imbibing wine made from his vines in what is now Armenia, near Mt. Ararat. But I'm absolutely sure that my Hindu readers would know from where this story originated.

In Sanskrit, Satya-Varman means "Protector of Truth; Protector of the Righteous." Varman often occurs at the end of the names of Kshatriyas (Hereditary Hindu Leadership Caste). Shem/Sem means "An Assembly." According to White racists(s), Ham was turned black as punishment for lacking in respect for his father. The Christian Fundamentalists insist that Sham fathered the Africans. It was this superstition that helped perpetuate the institution of slavery in our antebellum (pre-Civil War) South. Jyapeti became the "God of the Sun" or the Christian, Jewish, Assyrian, Greek and Roman Jupiter and Jahve or Jehovah. For the Hindus, he is Dyaus Pitar, mankind's first known manifestation of God Shiva.

Satyavarman told Sham that he would acquire a name from laughter. Two of the two tribes descended from Sham were the Ha-Ha and Ho-Ho. They later migrated to other parts of the world. Ha-Ha(am)/Ham, meaning "The Ha people," were among the founders of Egypt. Other descendants of Sham, the Hohokam, settled in the American Southwest. Kam derives from the Sanskrit Gana, meaning "Tribe." Hohokam = "The Ho-Ho Tribe." Notice that both groups were desert people. Another tribe that first settled in the American Southwest were the Anazazi, known in ancient India as Anaza-zi (The Undestroyed and Living God Shiva).

The Jewish Noah's Ark legend appears to be a mixture of three Hindu flood myths: Satyavarman, Vaivasvata, and Nahusha. The Mahabharata states:


"The progeny of Adamis and Hevas (Adam and Eve) soon became so wicked that they were no longer able to coexist peacefully. Brahma therefore decided to punish his creatures "Vishnu" [right] ordered Vaivasvata to build a ship for himself and his family. When the ship was ready, and Vaivasvata and his family were inside with the seeds of every plant and a pair of every species of animal, the big rains began and the rivers began to overflow."
Not only are the names of the main players in the Noah story the same as the family of Satyavarman, but, like the Vaivasvata part that the Old Testament authors plagiarized from the Mahabharata, the rains fell for forty days and forty nights.
According to the Vaivasvata story, Shem's name is Manu; Ham or Sham is Nabhanedistha; Japhet is Yayati or Dyaus-Pitar (Jupiter or the Hebrew Jehovah).

The third "Noah" was a deity named Dyaus-Nahusha. We Westerners call him Dionysius or Bacchus. Bacchus derives from the Sanskrit Bagha, meaning "God the Androgynous." When a great flood destroyed the world, Nahusha left India in order to restore civilization to mankind. He also left India for another reason which I'll relate in another part of this article. One of the places where he stopped was a small island city state called Sancha Dwipa (Sancha Island), where the citizens built their homes out of seashells.

The Hindu historian Paramesh Choudhury wrote in his book, The India We Have Lost, that Sancha Dwipa was an Egyptian island. However, there is a small Mexican island town just off the Pacific coast in Nayarit state, Mexcaltitan, where the preconquest citizens built their homes out of seashells. According to Toltec mythology, Mexcaltitan [right] was the Mexican deity Quetzalcoatl's port of entry into Mexico. In Hindu mythology, Nahusha and God Vishnu are in close association. Vishnu is often pictured as floating on a raft of snakes [ left]. He also holds a conch hand in his hand. The Mexican deity Quetzalcoatl was also pictured as floating on a raft of snakes. Conch shells adorned his temples. One drawing of Quetzalcoatl shows him wearing a necklace of conch shells.

But the Mexican anomalies don't stop here.

The pre-Aztec Toltecs were also called Nahoa and Nahua. Nahua tribes did, and still do, extend even into South America. Since the Toltecs could not pronounce "V," I ask myself whether the words Nahoa and Nahua derive from the Sanskrit Nava, meaning "Ship; Boat." The word "Toltec" also appears to derive from the Sanskrit word for "Descendant of the Upper World Nation": Tal-Toka. Quetzalcoatl's original homeland was Tlapallan (See my article about Atlantis). This could derive from the Sanskrit Tala-Pala (The Upper World Land of Pala), another name of the Indian state of Bihar. Even the stories of the lives of Dyaus-Nahusha and Quetzalcoatl are similar. Dyaus-Nahusha was banished from India for getting drunk and raping the wife of the legendary Hindu philosopher Agastya. Quetzalcoatl was banished getting drunk and raping his own daughter. I can provide even more proofs that Nahusha and Quetzalcoatl were the same individual. It's easy to prove that India once colonized Mexico. The hard part is keeping ourselves brainwashed to remain blind to this fact!

More than twenty years ago, when I first started investigating these matters, some Fundamentalist Christians scolded me: "What can you gain by proving that all the religions and cultures of the world copied their religious traditions from the Hindus?"

I answered, "Well, you're always saying that someone should go to India and save the Hindus' poor lost souls. O.K, you win. I'm doing it!"

[dark_lord_tnt]

A lot of CHRISTIAN "Jewish" accounts are or were accounts of other cultures. For example
Take Moses in the basket floating on the river, then being found by an Egyptian.. Its actually
a.) the account of Lord Krishna in the basket floating on a river,,
b.) Perseus and his birth coffin of death..

thats just one but they are many .. In the new testament

The immaculate conception of Jesus were taken from origins of Greece or even 1 roman God in particular who was born in the same way.

Walking on water, the Greek God Of wine, Turning wine into water ,, same God..

well there are many but...

[Chimera]

what the mudda france going on in this thread now

[dark_lord_tnt]

[d spike]

Okay.
Let's do this simply, so comprehension will take place...

so the questions you have just posed to me you should ask Jerome..

You stated a claim here - not Jerome.
I asked you about the source of the claim - you said you could not give that.
You then proceeded to quote Jerome, claiming the proof was in that writing, though not in the delivered script.
I asked if you could translate further, specifically the material concerning your claim.
You then state the following:

you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint

Now, where have you quoted the Septuagint? Where is the former translation you made from a CANONICAL book?
Where did I (or anyone else) ask you the query you stated as follows?

you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks

I certainly never asked you this...

whereas I afterwards published a translation without these.

So, according to you, you made TWO separate and subsequent translations of this remarkable script previous to this post with the two pictures...
Where are these translations in this thread?

LOL,, no no no,,,,, its you who have misunderstood,, That what you have asked me for, The translated portion of the document in correspondence between jerome, and DAüîÇ..

Let me be a bit more detailed.. The translated portion above is one that continues (a few pages after) of the many correspondence of Jerome. I gave a pic of the original in latin and the translated portion below. I should have stated such i apologize..

My PC has serious problems opening certain pictures/images, so I had no idea what the two images you posted were. Could you write out the translated excerpt?

In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it.

So then, go ahead and post the written translation... what's the problem?

I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world...

You still haven't shown how you have come to this supposition... and I fail to see how Jerome could explain your assumption either...

so the questions you have just posed to me you should ask Jerome..

I hope I have cleared up whatever misconceptions you seem to have had where my queries were concerned. I trust you will see that they have little to do with old Jerome, but rather, directly concern what physical written matter you claim to both understand and have at hand.

Cheers