Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Glenn Beck under fire for touting Nazi author's book
WorldNetDaily ^ | June 7, 2010 | Drew Zahn

Posted on 06/08/2010 9:40:16 PM PDT by Colofornian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: Bodleian_Girl

“So that means there is no unfailiable Word of God for mankind.

Rather sad.”

Psalm 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

The Bible that is valid is called the “Textus Receptus” - the Received Text” or The Majority text. It’s called that because the majority of manuscripts found agree together. They were not copied, compiled or written in Rome.

These scriptures were memorized and/or copied by people who were genuine, born-again Christians for centuries before there was a printing press. Call it a miracle - God was able to preserve His word as he promised He would in Psalm 12 as quoted above.

You may be confident that The King James Version, The Great Bible, The Tyndale Version and the Wycliffe Version are all valid holy scriptures. There are valid Spanish, French, German Bibles as well, also from the Textus Receptus or Majority Text.


41 posted on 06/09/2010 6:19:16 AM PDT by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“it is exciting for what they can reveal about what the early church wanted to hide or selectively control.”

Reveling in heresy is no virtue.


42 posted on 06/09/2010 6:41:43 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Ok you're superior to Beck we get it.

Let me get this straight. You say somebody who critiques another is platforming themselves as a "superior" person to the person they are critiquing.

Therefore, if we apply your own personal standards re: your comment toward me, that would mean you believe you're "superior" to me.

Well, thanks for wearing your personal standards on your sleeves for all to see.

43 posted on 06/09/2010 7:07:25 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: momtothree
The left hates this man and will find any flaw to condemn him.

(Why do they have to go "looking" when Beck is now starting to hand them major "gaffes" each week now?)

44 posted on 06/09/2010 7:08:54 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I’ve heard somewhere that we’ve gotten “Though shall not kill” from that particular mistranslation. The original reads, apparently, “Though shall not murder.”


45 posted on 06/09/2010 9:00:33 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I am a Medieval Historian by profession, church history. My undergrad work was in Biblical Studies under Richard Elliot Friedman and David Noel Freedman.

I am fully aware of the transmission process, and the history of the Bible and lay use.

I also know Bart Ehrman, personally. Not only are his facts incorrect, he has a HUGE ax to grind and has lost a lot of credibility in the field. The 65,000 number is completely incorrect for the KJV.

Furthermore, You (and Ehrman) makes an assumption that the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or even any of the other texts of the Nag Hammadi WERE Originally accepted at large by Christians, and later suppressed by Catholicism. That assumption (that is one of Ehrman’s pet theories) is not supported by the external documentation. Most scholars agree that the Nag Hammadi texts were only accepted by small gnostic communities and were not canonized nor were they accepted from an early date because of issues of historical or authorial provenance. Therefore, to state that the Catholic church intentionally left out documents that were widely accepted does violence to both the canonization process and early Christian history.

Most translations, btw, published after the discovery of the DSS, don’t have the KJV (Medieval) errors.


46 posted on 06/09/2010 9:22:17 AM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

LOL.


47 posted on 06/09/2010 9:24:32 AM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian
Lots of people sure learned how to read fast when Gutenberg revolutionized the mass production of books, wasn't it then?

He invented the MOVABLE type; making it unneccessary for a wood block cutter or a stone engraver to make the master copy.

48 posted on 06/09/2010 11:20:07 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

That’s not what I said.


49 posted on 06/09/2010 11:23:04 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

Try writing out a bible by hand. See how fast you can do it.


50 posted on 06/09/2010 11:23:54 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Yeah...I know. My point is a market existed for books. Gutenberg's invention would not have taken off if there wasn't a population which could read. This is commonly overlooked.

SatinDoll: Try writing out a bible by hand. See how fast you can do it.

Gee...I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Fact is, while that may have been done, monks weren't stupid. They produced books assembly line fashion. It was slow but not nearly as slow as you suggest by your comment to me.

51 posted on 06/09/2010 12:51:07 PM PDT by Brugmansian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I'm sorry, but if you had read the paragraph, I was in no way referring to Beck's religious preferences. Simply stating that as a television commentator, he has laid out, for those who are interested, information regarding the constitution, Federal papers, etc... and that info might be needed since many did not encounter it in their education.

It is hard to convince people to fight to maintain their rights and freedoms if they are unclear about what they are.

I see that you are a fierce debater with regard to Mormonism. : ) I am afraid I am pretty uneducated with regard to Mormonism, RLDS, etc, so I couldn't possibly engage in any sort of debate on those topics.

52 posted on 06/09/2010 3:37:22 PM PDT by MWestMom (Tread carefully, truth lies here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian
Gutenberg's invention would not have taken off if there wasn't a population which could read.

Mr. Ford seemed to do ok with one that couldn't and had no good roads to GO anywhere if they could!

53 posted on 06/09/2010 3:44:47 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MWestMom
It is hard to convince people to fight to maintain their rights and freedoms if they are unclear about what they are.

And THIS is EXACTLY my point!

What he SAID had NOTHING to do with actually STUDYING a religion; but they they must AGREE on one.

54 posted on 06/09/2010 3:47:24 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MWestMom
I see that you are a fierce debater with regard to Mormonism. : )

Ah...

I don't DEBATE much at all.

I just lay out the FACTS and ASSUME that most people have a RATIONAL mind to figger them out for themselves; which is, as you noted; hard to do without having access to ALL the 'facts' available.

55 posted on 06/09/2010 3:50:46 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Did you know that there are over 65,000 textual errors in the King James version of the Bible?

Sorry but that doesn't pass the smell test. A typical Bible is about 1,500 pages long which would mean approximately 40-45 errors per page.

56 posted on 06/11/2010 7:34:18 AM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson