I'm pretty sure I know your answer, but do you think God is capable of maintaining His word through the course of history?
> do you think God is capable of maintaining His word through the course of history?
Yes and no. I believe the core message hasn't been allowed to be touched. However there are provable mistranslations found throughout the Bible. There have been books removed which give greater detailed accounts of what and why God did some of what he did. The book of Enoch is one such book.
Can you provide said mistranslations, that don't come from a cult source such as Mormonism and JWs? There are different translations of the material based on the age but I'm curious to know what mistranslations your referring to, unless it's the verses added or left out depending on the scripture source and date ranges the translators were interested in.
And I'm regards to the book of Enoch: the issue it's not considered scriptural isn't in regards to it's existence. We know it does from mentions in the Bible itself, most notably I believe was a direct mention in the book of Ruth? The issue is that we do not have a text of the book of Enoch that can be dated from the pre-christ era. The manuscripts we have all post date the death of Christ by several decades to hundreds of years. I'm addition, the book of Enoch pieces we DO have were found in the company of Gnostic texts, and dates from the same eras of such. So it was left out until such time that we can find scroll from the BC era.
Yes.
God spreads his word through people that are connected to him. I will sooner listen to the words of a homeless man who lost his house after his wife died and succumbed to alcoholism, but never lost his faith in God and keeps fighting his demons every day, than to some priest who is reading from a book that (((Vatican))) had it's hands on for centuries.
You say God can preserve his word, but then go to a source that does not use any word other than faith. While I am not discounting anyone's faith on any level, I have to assert that your answer shows that you do not believe our Lord is capable of maintain his word through history.
See, the issue is that while you may hate the Vatican, or other religions.for that matter, the fact is that the Bible itself is free of religions. What religions DO with it is another matter all together. But we have literal miles of parchment and scrolls and fragments that can show a clear translation lineage going all the way back to as close to the original writers as possible. If the kikes had changed major portions of doctrine, or altered major portions that are important, we would be able to see a disruption in the translation history.
We see this in some parts of the Bible. The end of Mark being most noteworthy. The story of the woman caught cheating. We see it in the small word and grammar changes that occur during hand written translation.
But what we do not see are doctrine changes in the text itself that show tampering from an outside source like from the kikes. And this isn't just using Catholic source texts. This is using texts found at the dead sea, and other archeology sites throughout that region.
But let's say your right. Something was tampered with. Well, we do actually. Gnostic texts. We have found Gnostic texts that are very very similar to what all the other scrolls read...but just a tiny change to fit their own theology. It's why the so called hidden books like Enoch, Mary, Judas, and Thomas are not included in canon. They're found in the company of what we now know to be the equivalent of an ancient book of Mormon.
(post is archived)