High Desert Community

[Titwillow]

I just wondered: does anyone believe in Hell any more?

Recently I read a short book review about a man who claimed to have had a rather extended near-death experience. He spent quite a long time in Heaven and wrote a book about it. Of course, the review didnt give any details...you have to buy the book to find out..and my budget doesnt run to buying books....but I began to wonder:

How come nobody ever has a near=death experience and sees a vision of what Hell is like?

And does anyone believe in good spirits (angels) or in evil spirits (devils) any more?

What with Halloween fast approaching, and all the ghosties and ghoulies who will roaming the streets for tricks or treats, I thought it would be an appropriate time to ask.

[ACE CARTER]

Sure... Lot's of people believe in Hell


They go to things called "Churches..." where they read and study a book called, "The Bible..."

In this book is a world history of people who have had dealings and communictaed with the diety called, "God..."

There are stories and visions of Hell in this book. There are many references about what happens after one dies and where their disembodied spirits go and for how long.

There is lots of guidence about why we should avoid a Son of God called Satan with no body and his followers called Demons and what they do and why they do it.

There's stories about exorcisims and the casting out of demons that had taken over people's bodies.

Check this out for Halloween. Some of it is real spooky and scary.

[deb]

You had me up until you called Satan a Son of God.

[ACE CARTER]

If God is OUR Father


Where did Lucifer spring from? Nothingness?

I understand that he was a bad angel and tha those that chose his plan were cast out, to never be born here and get bodies, so they could be tested and then later after the Resurection have Celetial Glorified bodies like the ones Jesus had after His resurection.

Like in demons who wanted to be cast into the bodies of swine.

I sometimes get LDS scriptures mixed up with the ones in The Bible, though they do not differ and DO offer more complete explainations of events like The War In Heaven, prior to the creation of earth.

I suppose I could look up Lucifer's lineage in the Bible, but it is my limited understanding the Catholics really aren't "Into" the Bible and get their information elsewhere.

[Titwillow]

Not so, my frien, not so.

Catholics have Bible study groups; the Scriptures are read every day at daily Mass and on Sundays.

I personally cannot quote the Bible chapter and verse as many of my Protestant friends can, but that is my fault, not the Church's.

Jesus told his disciples that Satan is the father of lies and was a liar from the beginning.

[Eric Reyes]

It seems to me that Satan could no more be a son of God than all the angels in the world of the numinous are Jesus' biological or metapsychobiospiritblahblahblah brothers and sisters. I don't detect sibling rivalry between Jesus and satan. Jesus who is indeed God and not "my brother" according to scripture. And I don't find anything in the bible that would suggest Jesus is satan's brother, so I couldn't agree with such a conclusion because it diminishes who God is. Wouldn't you think? Satan isn't my brother and he sure isn't a god. Do you think satan is going to eventually become a god? I don't. And scripture doesn't mention anything of the sort either.

[Eric Reyes]

[ACE CARTER]

What translation of the Bible do Catholics study?


And who in their right mind would even consider ANYTHING eric says about Cathoilics or religion when he has said here he doesn't even believe in God?

But he's always ready to ARGUE, about religion and tries to undermine EVERYTHING posted here, with his own personal Disbelief.

Just like satan.

[Eric Reyes]

[deb]

[ACE CARTER]

Mormons Read The King James Bible Deb.

We believe that by being translated so many times, through so many languages an copied by hand prior to the Guttenber Bible which was printed mechanically, that many words and meanings were changed, some purposely and some just because there wasn't an accurate exact meaning from one language to another.

I am NOT here to search the scriptures for anyone.

Search them yourselves or not.

Nor am I here to argue against certain sects or beliefs. I am interested however.

What Bible to Catholics read? The Vulgate?

I really do not know.

I do know that many sects read different Bibles.

[Titwillow]

I like the edition called the IGNATIOUS Bible. I like the size..it is easy to hold. The print is easy for me to read.

The very fine print in the front pages says that this is the Revised Standard version, Catholic edition.

It is put out by Ignatious Press.

There is another edition called the New Jersulamen Bible; and then there is one called New American Bible.

These are just different editions; they are all the same Bible.

I looked up bibles on Google.

I dont know which Edition the Bible study groups use. I think, but am not sure, that the daily Mass and Sunday Mass readings come from the New American Bible....but there is no difference between those readings and the same readings in my Ignatious.

I would like to find a history of how the different editions came about I think the Vulgate was the original translation; I think there was a translation called the Douay. The King James version, of course.

Anyone help me out here?

[Eric Reyes]

"Ace" isn't ALLOWED to respond to this, so don't expect his response. He is expected to take this as a personal attack and to focus on this only in order to avoid thinking about the truth of the matter. It isn't "ace's" fault, but all all he knows is how to pretend he is butt hurt over the facts and pretend they are attacks instead of facts. I personally can't listen to dudes with this sort of ridiculous attitude.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/kjversion.htm

Problems with the King James Version

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:19)



All through the ages those who would reject Christ teaching and his church (The Roman Catholic Church). Have also had to reject the bible that Christ’ churches wrote, assemble, and protected for almost 2000 years.The canon, or list of approved New Testament books, was not approved by the Catholic Church until the 4th century a festal epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 367), as well as a contemporary decree of Pope St. Damasusin Rome (A.D. 381).

They must either reject or pervert and change the scripture to fit their own agenda. They take their example from the devil ( the father of all lies). We read in Matt. 4:1-11

"At that time, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil . . . Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: if thou be the Son of God, cast thy self down. For it is written: that he hath given his angels charge over thee."

This prophecy was taken 90th Psalm, but of the just man. Satan quotes this Psalm dishonestly to try to further his own goals.

When King James’ I call together his hand pick 54 scholars (stooges) they made 30,000 changes to the word of "God." Their goal was to alter the Bible so that it fit their Protestant view point. In process They took out seven books of sacred scripture. (Old Testament: Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Wisdom, and the two books of the Machabees).

There are many ways King James and his stooges deceitfully change sacred scripture. But, they fit in four general categories. First, is to reject the validity of whole books of sacred scripture. I go into this better little further along in this article. Second, they reject the ancient teaching and writing of Fathers o f the church, on sacred scripture and true meaning. These heretic try to negate their important by the theory of private interpretation of scripture. Which is streaky against the teaching of the Bible and Christ Church. (Sec. Peter 1:20)

"Understanding that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"

Third, these heretics perverted scripture by changing very texts. (The word of God) By adding or Subtracting to change or diminish the meaning here and their for their purposes. Fourth, is to make corrupt and false translations for they maintenance of their corrupt believes.

The original 1611 King James venison had over 30,000 mistakes most of which have been corrected of these changes and bad translations. That many errors show a design and plan. Because it hard for 54 scholars to miss up that many times by accident. Either it was on purpose or they were 54 of the most incompetent scholars in history and they had no business even trying to translate the Bible. Here is a small listing of only few of them. They are thousands more. This author has found over 4,823 examples, all through I humble admit I have not even begun to scratch the surfaces. Here is a small list of a few:



Luke 1:28

( King James Version) Hail, "thou that art highly favored,"our Lord is with thee

(Should Be) Hail "full of grace," our Lord is with thee.

Genesis 3:15

(King James Version) "Its" shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt "bruise his heel."

(Should Be) "She" shall bruise thy head in pieces and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

James 5:16

(King James Version)"Confess" your "faults,"

(Should Be) Confess," therefore, your "sins" one to another

Corinthians 9:5

(King James Version) Instead of "woman", they translate "wife" here also

(Should Be) Have not we power to lead about a "woman", a sister

Acts 20:28

(King James Version) Where in the Holy Ghost hath made you "overseers, to feed the church" of God

(should Be) Take need to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you "bishops to rule the church" of God

Matthew 11:10

(King James Version) Instead of "angel" they say "messenger"

(should Be) For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send mine "angle" before thy face.

1 Timothy 9:14

(King James Version)For the word "graces" they say "gift" and " presbytery" the Greek word rather than the English word, "priesthood

(should Be) Neglect not the "graces" that is in thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of "priesthood."

1 Timothy 3:8

(King James Version) Likewise must the "deacons" be "grave"

(should Be) "Deacons" in like manner "chaste," not double-tongued

James 5:14

(King James Version) Elders for "priests" here also

(should Be) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the "priests" of the church, and let them pray over him

Acts 15:2

( King James Version) The "priest" they say her also "elders"

(should Be) They appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up and certain other of the rest, to the apostles and "priests" unto Jerusalem.

Genesis 47:31

( King James Version) And "Israel bowed himself upon" the bed’s head

(should Be) "Israel adored God, turning to "the bed’s head.

Romans 11:4

(King James Version)I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to "the image of" Baal

(should Be) I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal

Genesis 37:35

( King James Version) I will go down into the "grave"

(should Be) I will go down to my son into "hell" mourning

Genesis 42:38

(King James Version) For "hell" they also say "grave"

(should Be) You will bring down my grey hair with sorrow unto "hell"

3 King 2:6,9

(King James Version) "To the grave

(should Be) Unto "hell"

Hosea 6:14

( King James Version) O death, I will be thy "plagues;" O "grave", I will be thy destruction

(should Be) O death, I will be thy death; I will be thy sting, O "hell"

2 Timothy 4:8

(King James Version) For "justice" they translate to righteousness and for a "just Judge" they say a righteous judge

(should Be) Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of "just ice," which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just Judge

1 Timothy 5: 17

(King James Version) "Elders" also in this Bible

(should Be) The "priests" that rule will, let them be esteemed worthy of double honor

1 Timothy 5:19

(King James Version) Instead of "priest" they put "elder"

(should Be) Against a "priest" receive not accusation

Psalm 6:5

(King James Version) In the grave, who shall give thee thanks?

(should Be) But in "hell", who shall confess to thee?





James I, King or Queen of England



"His Majesty’s Royal Greatness... not only as to our king and sovereign but as to the principal mover and author of the work: humbly croving of your most sacred majesty." (Preface to the Authorized Version)

"He (King James I) disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men" (Encyclopedia Americana 1995)

"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an, abomination let them be put to death: their blood be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)



Who was this dishonest king? Morally what kind of man was he? First of all we know he was queer. Not only do the historical reference prove this. Such as testament of Sir. John Oglander in 1617, before the privy council England.

"The king is wondrous passionate, a lover of his favorites beyond the love of men to women. He is the chastise prince for women that ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favorites, especially Buckingham." (Queen James and His Courtiers 1997)

We also have a large number of love letters from Queen James to one of his lovers thee Earl of Buckingham, who was later promoted to the post of post of "gentleman of king bed chamber" (Encyclopedia American 1995)

James use to end these letters calling Buckingham his only sweet child, his sweet child and wife, thy dear dad and husband and dear dad. (King James VI of Scotland I of England 1974) It is clear that their relationship parallels modern queer "father/son" associations. Most of these letters are so perverted and sexual that I being good Catholic could not print them here. But, I did print one of the few safer ones for a example (see page )

There is also painting Queen James commissioned Daniel Mytens the elder to paint of him. It now hang in the national portrait gallery, London. For this portrait (one of his favorite) James pose in Queen Elizabeth’s coronation gown. Making King James to the best this authors knowledge the first "Royal Drag Queen" in English history.

If this was not nauseating enough King James in 1617 address the honorable privy council with a official affirmation of his love for men Buckingham. This deplorable king try to justify his homosexuality with one the worst kinds of blastlefany. King James a official stated he believe Christ was queer.

"I, James am neither a God nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are her assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defeat, for Jesus Christ did the same and therefore I can not be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George." (King James VI of Scotland I of England, Antonia Fraser,1974)



This same man who was the principle able "mover" and "author" of this deceitful book, that some call "Bible." It is truly sin against God to call this wicked, evil king "most sacred" as the official preface does. This is another example of the horrible dishonesties of the writer and printer of this book threw the ages. They have been many attempt to changes or pervert sacred scripture and history to fit there lies. They have fooled many trusting and ignorant people. Many people are just tolazies to search for truth and what is right.

Secondly, we know that King James also in his bid to consolidate his power over English people and church of England. ( This is reason of the making of his "Bible." Repressed the Protestants when it fit his purposes. King James, "repress the Protestants a strongly as have the Catholics." (Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia) The use of torture was quite common under James rules. His political and economic blundering was so great it cause one French state man to laughing characterize King James as the "wisest fool in Christendom." ( Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia 1994)



The First of Many Lies



King James Version "Translated out of the original tongues"

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16)



The reason that I put such enfencence on this lie out of thousands, is because it is this falsehood that the heretics use to varidify there bible. Most Protestants have never stopped and thought about this phase. What it really means it is cleverly deceptive way of saying that some of the papers in front of them were written in Greek or Hebrew. It does not say original "text and does not mean that they used the actual writing of the apostle. It doesn’t even say the papers they used were even scripture (Only written in Greek and Hebrew) for all we know they may have used a take out menu for the Jewish deicatestant down the street for there translation that would explain a lot of their mistakes. This statement is so cleverly vague it is deceptive as to its meaning. Many trusting Protestants ignorantly read a lot more into "original tongues" than is really being said.

Now lets take a closer book at the accuracy of this statement. They list the original tongues as Hebrew and Greek lets look at the first one "Hebrew." There are two very different ancient Hebrew languages Biblical "Hebrew" and "Mishnaic Hebrew." James stooges convently forgot to say which one they used so let look at both. First we will look into the "Biblical Hebrew." It is the original language adopted by the IBLRI or Israelites from the 12 century to the second century B.C. . About that time the Israelites were using Aramaic parts of the rabbinical literature were originally written in Aramaic. About the second or third century B.C. seventy learned Jews assembly in Egypt to translate the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic scripture into Greek. In the third century B.C. the Old Testament began to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. ( Encyclopedia International 1982) This bible became known as the Septuagint from the Latin word Septuagint "seventy". They did this for several reason, biblical Hebrew have became out dated it is a more primitive language then the Greek or Aramaic. Also it was no longer understood by most of Jews. Since King James scholars do not mention that some of the text were written Aramaic and the fact that biblical Hebrew was nearly extinct (with the exception of some sacred documents) two hundred years before Christ was born. 1800 years before the King James Version was written. It is safe to say that the Hebrew , James hand pick stooges used was Mishamaic Hebrew or post biblical Hebrew. This is a later version of the original Hebrew strongly based on the Aramaic. With about Three hundred words borrowed from the Greek or Latin. "Greek and Latin words penetrated into Hebrew" (Encyclopedia International 1982) the point in is that the "original language" of the old Testament the original biblical Hebrew was an extinct and dead language time Christ was born. "The oldest existing Hebrew biblical texts date back only to the 10th century"(The Pocket Bible Dictionary 1996) it is interesting to note that these writings are not written in biblical Hebrew but rather the "Mishnaic Hebrew" which included Vowel-points. Clearly contrary to what the King James version claims its could not have been translated from the original language biblical Hebrew.

Secondly, it is important to note that the Hebrew scriptures (whether "biblical" or "Mishnaic") was NOT the translation chosen by Christ to use, Christ and his disciples used the Greek translation known as the Septuagint "Christ and his apostles used Septuagint frequently. In quoting from the Old Testament sometimes they cited the Septuagint verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes: There are about 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the gospel. The Acts, and the epistles, The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the Septuagint (Acts viii. 30-33)."( A Dictionary of the Bible, 1954 p.799)

which coincides with the fact that other than gospel Matthew the new Testament was exclusively written in Greek. Which brings up the next question why would the 54 translators to the King James Version wish to use any translation of scriptures not used by Christ?

This brings us to the next question why did they choose to use 10th century "Mishnaic Hebrew texts instead of the 5th century Greek text ? This explains why in many places of the original King James Version the New Testament quotes do not match up with the Old Testament quotes, leading to much confusion and problems.





The Missing Books

"The New Testament quotes from the longer Septuagint Greek [which did contain the Deutero-Canonical books, Tb, Jdt, Wis, Sir, Bar, 1Mc, 2Mc, and parts of Est and Dn. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963, 310] Canon no less than 350 times." (Background To The Bible, An introduction to Scripture Study 1978.)

(The Books of The Bible 1997)"The original 1611 King James Version contained the Deutero Canonical books it was not until the 1629 revision that they came in two dispute"



Protestants generally refer to these seven books as "Apocrypha" meaning "hidden" in the ancient Greek Catholics refer to these books as "Deutero-Canonical" or "second Canon". The truth is these books for by no means "hidden" for even Protestant scholars are forced to admit that they were part of the Septuagint Canon, except in Canon at the time of the Christ "At first the LXX [Septuagint] was highly regarded by all the Jews; it spread from Egypt to the whole Jewish Diaspora and became the official Bible Greek-speaking Judaism. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek for Greek-speaking people, usually quoted from the Old Testament. according to the LXX [Septuagint]. Naturally, therefore, the LXX also became the official Old Testament of the early Church, and it is still the official Old Testament in of the Greek Church, of both the Unite and the Schismatic Christians. However, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., when Jewish opposition to Christianity became more pronounced and Judaism crystallized in its rabbinical form, the LXX [Septuagint], though originally made by Jews for Jews, was frowned on by the Jews as a quasi-Christian book."(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963). Not only was the Septuagint the Bible of choice among the 1st century Jews but the chosen scriptures of the 12 apostles "The earliest New Teastament documents are Paul's. He used Septuagint citations; therefore he knew of the Deutero Canonical. One supposes that Matthew, Mark, and John also knew the whole Septuagint. Luke is so familiar with it, that he is able closely to imitate its style. It is from these writers that we have the words of Jesus."(Catholic Information Network 1996). More than two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them. But the apostles did not merely place the Deutero Canonical. in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the Deutero Canonical. in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

The Deutero Canonical books were part of every Christian Bible Canon up until the 16th century. Even if the 54 scholars translated the original 1611 King James version of the Bible included these books in their cannon. It was not until 11 years later during the 1623 re-vision of this Bible that these books were removed. "The Apocrypha consists of the books that are found in the Greek version of the Jewish Bible—the Septuagint, the earliest complete version of the Bible was possess—but that were not included in the final, Canonical version of the 90 A.D. Hebrew Bible. For this reason, they were called "Apocrypha," the hidden or secret book, and while they formed part of the original King James Version of 1611." (The Apocrypha, by Edgar J. Goodspeed, copyrights: 1989,1959,1938). This forces us to make one of Three observations about the King James version of the Bible, either:

1) The original 54 scholars who translate the King James Version were highly and incompetent and clearly prove their ignorance of scripture by adding seven books to the Bible which do not belong.

OR

2) The revisionists the reformed the King James Version in 1623 were highly and incompetent a clearly prove their ignorance of scriptures by removing seven sacred books of the Bible.

OR

3) Neither the original 54 scholars or the revisionists had any idea of what they were during and never should have attempted to play with Holy Scripture.

Whichever observation you wish to believe it forces us to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of this English translation. it also forces us to classify the King James Version of the Bible has nothing more than a Miss-Translated.

[Eric Reyes]

[Eric Reyes]

[Titwillow]

Eric...I gave Ace the most honest answer I could. He wanted to know what Bible the Catholics used.

I told him the Edition of the Bible that I use. I can't speak for other Catholics.

I have an older Bible....the edition put out by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. I don't use it because the cover is coming loose and some of the pages are starting to come out. But it looks to me like the same Bible in content that my newer Ignatious Bible is.

I am not a Bible scholar. I think many of the modern "revised" editions were simply designed to put the Scriptures into more modern English so we 21st century super-educated people could understand them. Like converting the word "brethren" into "brothers and sisters"......or finding another word for "mankind".....those are perfectly good generic words.

The 23rd Psalm in the King James version...as I recall it...is a beautiful piece of poetry. "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures"...
But in my modern edition it reads: "In verdant pastures he gives me repose".
In King James: "...I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.."
but in my modern version "..I walk in the dark valley..."
and so on.
I don't know how other folks might feel, but the thought of walking throu the valley of the shadow of death makes me sit up and take notice.
I am human; I am mortal. Someday I am going to have to do that.

I would be curious to know what edition of the Bible you use.

[Eric Reyes]

I enjoy reading any bible, including KJV and Gideons. (Especially when I'm by myself in a hotel getting ready to gig or whatever because I think that WISDOM is found when it is sought, and I recognize I lack WISDOM). Anyway, we have three or four different bibles around the house and one in my garage. Lately I prefer using the New Catholic Answer Bible. What gets me is reading something that means much in one bible, but not finding it in others because the book was historically omitted. If I read a Protestant bible, I do so knowing it isn't complete but that it remains the Word of God, albeit an imperfect translation. If I read an unadulterated bible, it still remains the Word of God. What I can't stand is for a KJV kook insulting my intelligence regarding historical TRUTH. I don't read the bible as ardently as I used to. I am not a good Catholic either and I don't pretend to be. I'm not pious and frankly I've been deeply struggling with my faith in God. That being said, I know when somebody is trying to bamboozle people (even if the bamboozler isn't aware of it), into not understanding nor accepting the entire historical TRUTH.

[deb]

Let's see. The version that American Catholics use most is the New American Bible, which is approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the Bible used to proclaim the Word during Mass. I study that one when I am preparing to Lector.

For personal use, I prefer the Douay-Rheims. The language is beautiful. I also have a devotional Bible. I do study Protestant versions, but only for comparison.