They finally stopped running this psyop but here were the purposes of them. If they had succeeded, it would have made all our lives much harder because everyone would think of us as dumb ass flat earthers.
-
If people think of us as dumb flat earthers, they would not believe them when we tell them the Gov is involved in conspiracy against the People.
-
Deep State live underground in caverns. They don't want us to know there are good and bad civilizations in inner Earth. The bad ones are Reptilians running very evil and Satanic things underground. The good ones are good people who are so advanced, they were just waiting for us to catch up to the civilized level and we are there now so they want to connect.
-
The more bs people believe in, the harder life gets and they want us to have a hard life.
Your point is valid.
So? It's very reliable. If a Spanish person read the Constitution he would get largely all the same ideas. If one is so concerned about translations being unreliable, they should learn and use the original Biblical languages themselves.
How was earth made?
Thanks for the other info. It is an excellent addition. The more, the merrier!
I agree with your statement. But, how do you know which is the original language? for instance what was the NT written in? which language?
The Hebrew NT has the marks of inspiration. However, tradition implies that Matthew wrote first in Aramaic, and all the NT has Aramaic thought behind it. My theory is that Matthew's first draft was Aramaic (and is reflected in some Peshitta) but he rewrote in Greek, the language the others used because it circulated faster. I love reading the Aramaic.
Who is Matthew? and according to you he wrote the gospel in both Aramaic, the Greek. That means he was able to speak and write-in both languages. A quick search and I came up with somewhere around 70 CE when the Gospel according to Mathew was written. Why was this gospel written so late?
Who are the others? I knew Jesus was able to speak both Aramaic and Greek, plus Hebrew. So Jesus was trilingual. But, I thought none, with two exceptions, of his disciples were able to speak Greek. Let alone write in Greek. Two of Jesus' disciples, Andrew and Philip, had Greek names, so perhaps they were able to speak to the crowds in Greek. But there is no evidence they were able to write in Greek. At least I wasn't able to find any historical evidence.
Well, it's a story long complicated by people who want to suppress the truth. The whole NT has conservative and liberal dates, and proposed authorship by the names attributed and by proposed persons unknown, and the resolution to the matter depends in part on what stance you take.
There's not an indication that the NT was "late", especially not by the standards used to compare any other historical book. For a biography (let alone four) to be written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the biography was exceedingly rare. One thing hard for liberals to ignore is that 1 Cor. 15:3-4 was a formal oral confession already circulating 2-5 years after Jesus's resurrection. The church leaders didn't find it necessary to write a bio because they were all able to testify personally; the writing came at a point where persecution made the risk of loss of material evident. In particular, Luke-Acts explicitly says it was written to give an accurate history up to Paul's imprisonment, implying it was to be used for his trial; and it also says other gospels had been written before it, which informs the conservative dating of the 50s.
Matthew is the English name of the former tax collector who would have had the Hebrew names Mattityahu and Levi. It was common for people to be moderately bilingual, but there's nothing about disciples being unable to speak Greek (you may be thinking of inferences people assume from Acts 4:13). The argument from silence does not prove the disciples were unable to write in Greek. Obviously the traditional authors of the NT are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, though there are folks who helped like Tertius. Given the variations in Greek style, there's no evidence they could not have been written by those whom they've been associated with from the start (the attributions themselves are in fact historical evidence that they knew Greek).
However, if you wish to teach the Aramaic primacy position, that's the sort of thing this board is for. I'm familiar with it but it doesn't change the fact that the church recognized the Greek text as inspired and the Aramaic texts as of only local use. The issues are (1) believing that God has spoken in authoritative documents, (2) discerning which original documents these were, and (3) discerning the message therein. If you believe in Scripture in the first place, there's not a good reason for questioning the covenant people's standards for testing what is Scripture over time because they were there and knew what people had written for the community as from God. But even those who propose Aramaic primacy have many who recognize the message to be the same as the traditional church teaches. On occasion Aramaic primacy is used to teach a wholly different Jesus/Yeshua, but that can be tested on historical grounds like any other proposition. So I'm interested where you want to go with your questions.
Evolution is false. Abiogenesis is false. Billions of years is false. The big bang didn't happen as the secularists believe it did.
So, what's true in your opinion? are we living in a real world, or are we in a computer simulation?