From: "codebreaker{at}bigsecret.com" 

On Mar 22, 3:10 pm, "Bill M"  wrote:
> The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.


We all know that your master Darwin missed the point about the bible. No small wonder



>
> The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and unlikelihood
>
> of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there
> are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown
> accuracy.
>
> One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
> copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between
> lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no
> spaces were used to separate words.
>
> This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
>
> 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no
> where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left
> accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely.
>
> Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the
> intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and
> you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy.
>
> Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the
> vocabularies were  much more limited than today.
>
> The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
> existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
> available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
> veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
> invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
> supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
> are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
> the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their
follower's
> belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions alone
> and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the
> originals.
>
> And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than
> inaccurate fiction.
>
> Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning.
>
>  wrote in message
>
> news:1174434015.511631.238010{at}n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 4:40 am, "arah"  wrote:
> >>  Paul Was A Deceiver!
>
> >> He was Satan In The Flesh! An Antichrist!
>
> >> Matthew 24:4-5 states you will be deceived by people that come using
> >> Jesus' name. Consider the parable of the sower. Jesus was warning us
> >> then that as soon as His Gospel was preached, the enemy (Paul) would
> >> be there to steal the truth!
>
> >> ***The real (untranslated) name of Jesus is Y'hoshua   (pronounced
> >> like the name Joshua but with a Y, YoHoshua, some pronounce his name
> >> as Yeshua). All refer to the Son of God who came as the promised
> >> Messiah
>
> >> Now before you throw a tantrum and wonder why I haven't been struck by
> >> lightening straight from the throne room of God, I can prove to you
> >> that Paul was a Fraud using his own words. Of course, if you're a
> >> female, and you're in the ministry, you already know he was, you
> >> probably just didn't realize it! For to be a female and in the
> >> ministry of the Lord, you had to turn your back on Paul to follow
> >> Jesus. Congrats! You figured it out! You refused to buy into the lie
> >> pie Satan tried to sell you as Paul!
>
> >> I'm going to make some startling points to wake your mind up into the
> >> truth, so hear me out, then I'll go through and explain each one and
> >> give you all the proof you need to see for yourself that what I'm
> >> saying is indeed the truth.
>
> >> Paul was Satan in the Flesh
>
> >> Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus
>
> > The information given in the Bible says otherwise.
> > Now the question the Bible or you?
>
> >> Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked,
> >> and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from
> >> "revelations."
> > This is what revelation means. No human training is needed
>
> >> Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he
> >> told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.
> > How about Luke changing the story to fit the need of his audience.
> > I am not saying Luke was being a fraud, but that Paul experience
> > was obvious to anyone that there was no need to embelish it
>
> >> Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was
> >> the Father
> > Without the Gospel of Paul you will be stoned to death
> > for working on Saturday, you will be circumcised and
> > taking ablution before prayers. You will turn
> > to Jerusalem for prayers, you will be colonized by the
> > JEWISH COSTUM. Adutlerers will be stoned to death.
> > You will considered leprosy as a curse from God
> > Impur people with leprozy will be segrated and not attended to
> > You will not eating pork.
> > You will not own dogs.
> > Are you attracted to Islam? It Is Paul teaching in REVERSE
>
> >> Paul declared  he himself was the son of God
>
> > Reference????
>
> >> Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to
>
> > He did not issue the dietary Law that the Apostles decreed during
> > the Council of Jerusalem. But his explanation about the fact that
> > the dietary Law elements of
> > the Old COVENANT can't exist within the CONTEXT of the
> > NEW COVENANT make sense.
> > After all Jesus is reported to have said that you can't put
> > the A New wine in the Old jar
>
> >> Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples
> >> did.
> > What did Jesus taught?  Weere you there when Jesus was teaching
>
> >> Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did
> >> and were doing.
> > Like what? Like running away from the Gentiles because
> > they were impure for not being circumcised?
> > That is a good thing I like him for that.
>
> >> Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of
> >> Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over!
>
> > You are taking God's place. It is for God to know
> > If he did or did not. He is the only one you can
> > read the heart
>
> >> Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's
> >> lying?
> > Where did Jesus say that? Jesus was put to death because
> > he was accused of breaking Moses Law by working on Sabbath
> > day. He was later rejected as the Christ by Israel because
> > Moses Law says:" CURSED IS THE ONE HUNG ON THE TREE"
> > It is easy to misuse the Law. This is what the Scribes were
> > doing as a result Jesus cursed them: WOE TO YOU
> > PHARISEES AND SCRIBES BECAUSE YOU USE THE LAW
> > TO ENSLAVE THE POORS
>
> >> Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he
> >> condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14,
> >> something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.
>
> > No, it was saying that Jesus the Christ and as the Christ
> > he was entitled to some special priviledges because you
> > will never sin. Men frequently do sin
>
> >> Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children
> >> (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26)
> >> that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.
> > Even the Islamic doctrine which poist itself as the defender
> > of Law of Moses by enforcing circumcision and
> > some other commendments of Moses Law did not follow
> > the SABBATH to the Letter. It chose Friday as the day
> > of rest for the UMMAH. Some calendars put Friday
> > as the day when Jesus was put to death.
>
> >> In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything
> >> but what "he preached." He explained this even
further in the second
> >> book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads -
> >> "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were
> >> foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." He's telling
you plain and
> >> simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"
> > Boasting was a sin and not a virtu. Paul did not learn boasting
> > from Jesus Himself from the world which praise such people.
> > Jesus being holy, there was no boasting in him.
> > You are being too literal, here you are dealing with RHETORIC
>
> >> Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples
>
> > POST YOUR REFERENCE
>
> >> Paul claimed he himself was the son of God
> > POST YOUR REFERENCE. CITE PLEASE
>
> >> Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination),
> >> Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?
> > Jesus know the difference between man and woman and their
> > different responsabilities. SECULAR TEACHING DON'T.
> > He knew that women get pregnant and men don't...
> > Good thing Paul imitated Jesus
>
> >> Jesus: When Yahshua confronts the Adversary, he defeats him by saying,
> >> "You shall live by every word that proceeds from the
mouth of YHWH,
> >> and Him alone will you serve."
>
> >> Paul: When Paul is mobbed by people who wish to stone him for
> >> preaching against the Law of YHWH, he relies on the worldly
> >> authorities as a Roman entitled to the protection of the government
> >> rulers who save him (Dt. 8:3, Mt.4:4, Acts 22:26, 23:27
> > Between the barbarian Law of the Jew and their court
> > and the Roman court I would do exactly what Paul did.
> > At least he had the right to defend himself
> > before being mobbed abd stoned to death as it should have
> > be done within the Jewish court.
>
> >> Jesus: "DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR
> >> FATHER, HE who is in heaven"
> >> (Matthew 23:9)
>
> >> The devil 'PAUL' BLASPEMOUSLY BOASTED
>
> >> "For I BECAME YOUR FATHER"
> >> (1 Corinthians 4:15)
>
> > Did this force you to call him father? You are
> > still calling Paul and there is no Law against that.
> > I think you are being too literal.
> > What do you call your biological father?
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag