[Unfalsifiable]

I was studying the Bible study threads of the Landover forum (as I do) and I recalled many years ago (I have been a member since 2008) the True Christians explained to me (a humble outsider) why the Latin Vulgate and its sinful translations was so corrupt and dangerous.


Now - you explained to me that the Vulgate takes out a key passage where the Bible explains that someone has to be aware of what' happening to be baptized; hence why they meaninglessly splash babies with water in their silly Disney Magic Kingdom micky mouse looking "churches".



Which verses was this referring to?

[Phil Ander]

Friend,

The 1611 KJV is the only Bible approved by God. That's the stairway to Heaven.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Unfalsifiable

Now - you explained to me that the Vulgate takes out a key passage where the Bible explains that someone has to be aware of what' happening to be baptized; hence why they meaninglessly splash babies with water in their silly Disney Magic Kingdom micky mouse looking "churches".

I am pretty sure meaninglessly splashing children with water is not equal to baptizing. Getting a rodent involved makes even less sense.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Unfalsifiable

I was studying the Bible study threads of the Landover forum (as I do) and I recalled many years ago (I have been a member since 2008) the True Christians explained to me (a humble outsider) why the Latin Vulgate and its sinful translations was so corrupt and dangerous.


Now - you explained to me that the Vulgate takes out a key passage where the Bible explains that someone has to be aware of what' happening to be baptized; hence why they meaninglessly splash babies with water in their silly Disney Magic Kingdom micky mouse looking "churches".



Which verses was this referring to?

You could start off with Acts 8:29-38

[WWJDnow]

I am delighted to hear that you take Bible studies so seriously. You may be saved yet! I will pray for your redemption through the blood of Jesus.

Most English translations of the Bible omit verse 37 from Acts 8. This verse makes it perfectly clear that baptism is only effective if you already believe in Jesus as your Savior (here in the definitive Bible version, the King James 1611):

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Verse 37 was in the original Latin Vulgate, but it is not in the Nova Vulgata, the Latin Vulgate version that is currently approved by the Catholic Church. The Catholics omitted this verse because it makes clear that infant baptism is not appropriate. Catholic leaders worship the Devil, not God, and their mission is to lead persons who otherwise would be saved astray with their false doctrines.

[MitzaLizalor]

https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/acts_8.htm

[Unfalsifiable]

So it WAS in the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome, but some point the Catholics decided that they wanted to splash the children?!


This is outrageous.

[WWJDnow]

That's it in a nutshell. Catholics are constantly changing their beliefs and practices. One day there's purgatory, then hocus pocus, the Pope makes a statement, and purgatory never existed. One day there's a Hell with actual fire, then, abara cadabara, the Pope speaks and Hell is fire-free, simply a place of distance from God. Evolution was wrong, then, only 100 years after Darwin, evolution happened. At the rate the Catholics keep changing the meaning of the Bible, by the 2050's they'll be denying the existence of Jesus.

This is one of the ways you can tell that Satan has a hold on the Catholic Church. Click on the picture of the Chick Tract to learn more about the evils of Catholicism:

[MitzaLizalor]

Even without the reference though, Queen Candace's eunuch only requested baptism after having The Good News explained and understood. The word "requested" seems significant in this context – it could be that an understanding of language is a minimum requirement. I'm not claiming that though because it's not in The Bible.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship

Actus Apostolorum VIII xxvii et surgens abiit et ecce vir aethiops eunuchus potens Candacis reginae Aethiopum qui erat super omnes gazas eius venerat adorare in Hierusalem

There's an English text included with the Vulgate translation. It's the Douay-Rheims.

Douay-Rheims¹ And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

Have you heard of Jacques Derrida² and Julia Kristeva³ who suggest words have no meaning? Catholicism would be an example of how an abstract or non-existent concept becomes real – for some meaning of "real" you may be unfamiliar with but don't panic, we have no idea either. Kristeva suggests the following path into [what she calls] reality:

A difference between the sign and the symbol can, however, be seen vertically as well as horizontally: within its vertical function, the sign refers back to entities both of lesser scope and more concretized than those of the symbol. They are reified universals become objects in the strongest sense of the word. Put into a relationship within the structure of the sign, the entity (phenomenon) under consideration is, at the same time, transcendentalized and elevated to the level of theological unity. The semiotic practice of the sign thus assimilates the metaphysics of the symbol and projects it onto the “immediately perceptible.”

I'm very certain you don't want me to go on to the the horizontal function⁴ of the difference between signs and symbols because Romish catholicism exists as a gargantuan example right before our eyes. What has been removed from the Vulgate is already dealt with. Here is something added, and note the slippery use of words, well in keeping with Kristeva's gobbledygook:

[footnote to Acts chapter 8]
The scripture many times mentions only one disposition, as here belief, when others equally necessary are not expressed, viz., a sorrow for sins, a firm hope, and the love of God. Moreover, believing with the whole heart signifies a belief of every thing necessary for salvation.

I've highlighted the red flag: what a priest tells you is necessary for Salvation is as excessively verbose and over-bloated as anything written by Kristeva or Derrida. Worse, in fact. They have all these objects for you to adore (see buzz-word in verse 27) and traps set at every turning to lock you in. By muttering and waving the arms around in the sign of the cross, exactly what Julia Kristeva describes is taking place. The nonsense becomes real (“reified”) and not even reading the source material—for which they'd burn you alive when their words had the force of law—is sufficient to change anyone's mind once envenomed. But if you do, they've butchered it in advance.

So sad.





1.
The original text of the Douay-Rheims is available here
https://originaldouayrheims.com/acts8
current version is at Douay-Rheims site
it does not have a secure https protocol
copy/paste to read: http://drbo.org/chapter/51008.htm

2.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Inc

3.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com...21911-0063.xml

4.
In case you did, both start on page 40 of
Desire in language : a semiotic approach to literature and art
by Kristeva, Julia, 1941-

[johnsonjohny]

Originally Posted by Unfalsifiable

I was studying the Bible study threads of the Landover forum (as I do) and I recalled many years ago (I have been a member since 2008) the True Christians explained to me (a humble outsider) why the Latin Vulgate and its sinful translations was so corrupt and dangerous.


Now - you explained to me that the Vulgate takes out a key passage where the Bible explains that someone has to be aware of what' happening to be baptized; hence why they meaninglessly splash babies with water in their silly Disney Magic Kingdom micky mouse looking "churches".



Which verses was this referring to?

There are six direct references to homosexuality in the Bible -- three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Some Biblical scholars say the passages need to be taken at face value. Other theologians say it's much more complicated. [LINK TO FALSE RELIGION REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

[handmaiden]

Originally Posted by johnsonjohny

There are six direct references to homosexuality in the Bible -- three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Some Biblical scholars say the passages need to be taken at face value. Other theologians say it's much more complicated.

It's not.


The Bible says that it is wrong. Therefore, if one wants to worship God as described in the Bible, one must accept the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.


People who claim to be Christians and Gay are worshiping their own personally contrived deity as opposed to the one of the Bible. They do this because it makes them feel good. This is also not complicated. What is complicated is the process by which "Gay" Christians and so many others who wrap themselves in the mantle of Christ mentally cut and paste the Holy Book that lays out the tenets of their faith into something that--while it assuages their fears and insecurities--is diametrically opposed to what their Holy Book actually teaches. The psychological gymnastics involved in their self delusion must be exhausting to them at times. I know how tiring, (and tiresome), it can be just to attempt to educate them on the actual contents of the Bible.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Any Romans reading this thread who are thinking of modifying the Bible should watch this video from Poetically J, who aims to "inspire you to be the brightest, truest version of you so that you can bring the very best you have to offer into fruition". Or in the case of modifying the Bible, preferably not.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Brother Dr. Toole, did anyone ever actually ask for Poetically J's advice on this, or any other matter?

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Brother Dr. Toole, did anyone ever actually ask for Poetically J's advice on this, or any other matter?

Sister, in the same way nobody specifically asked God to write a book about our moral failings, nor to sacrifice His only son for our benefit, Poetically J was divinely inspired to use up 11 minutes and 34 seconds of the precious gift of life to explain in excruciatingly detailed video monologue the essence of her teachings. I hope that answers your question.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Sister, in the same way nobody specifically asked God to write a book about our moral failings, nor to sacrifice His only son for our benefit, Poetically J was divinely inspired to use up 11 minutes and 34 seconds of the precious gift of life to explain in excruciatingly detailed video monologue the essence of her teachings. I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for your ever-valuable explanation, Brother Dr Toole, Sir, which in this case was solicited. It is sad, though, that Poetically J failed to observe 1 Timothy 2:12.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Thank you for your ever-valuable explanation, Brother Dr Toole, Sir, which in this case was solicited. It is sad, though, that Poetically J failed to observe 1 Timothy 2:12.

Yes that is sad. On the other hand, Poetically J isn't just a Youtube Creator who offers advice on topics such as "How to stop giving unsolicited advice", "How to come up with ideas" and "What we can learn from the ancient Mayans". She is also a poet. Many people use poetry to express what's inside of them - often into the toilet - or sometimes in a diary but in Poetically J's case on the Internet. Let's see what she's on about in her piece Cataclysmic Collision:

To be honest, this one isn't speaking to me. I think it's about a... collision? Maybe there were problems with the insurance company that made her upset.

[MitzaLizalor]

I thought it was about duck-face?

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

My what high cheekbones and strong jawlines they all have (except the 2nd one who's too fat for that).

[MitzaLizalor]

I think they're all the same person.