Exactly, Anti-Christ is a significant title placed on someone who is against Christ not necessarily one big scary individual but many people with a spirit against Christ and His Church fall perfectly inline with the definition of Anti-Christ as John said even back then, "many."

The Son of Perdition however seems to be one person but I can't quite place my finger on it or whether this person has come and died already or if it's something to come in or after our lives currently.

Huh? I spoke only of what Jesus said of the manner of his return. I don’t care about Q or Kim Clement. I care about Christ.

The white hats being in direct control of everything is a perfectly fine explanation the way I see it. Then all they have to do is cause events that line up.

Though, it's certainly possible that God is guiding the (true) leaders of our country to see His Will be done. Just don't see how it's the only possibility.

It is 100% factual. I trust God, not the cabal. To believe God allowed the cabal to corrupt the Bible is to trust their ability to corrupt more than God's ability to preserve.

Faith in God must reign supreme over worldly distrust.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the Bible. That's like saying a library is all one book. It was a collection of manuscripts and in fact did a great job proving the Bible hasn't changed in 2000 years.

I am curious about the Book of Enoch though, and intend to get around to reading it, but it is not the Word of God. Doesn't mean it doesn't have valuable information, but it's not the Word of God and any claims that it is are at this point pulled out of thin air.

And the Vatican edited nothing. God wouldn't allow this. Instead, God guided His Church to ensure they included the right books in the Bible, and not just every work that any random sect decided they liked the sound of. It was authoritative, as scripture must be. It was perfect and infallible, as God ensures. And it was by a council guided by the Holy Spirit, as is evidently needed for authoritative truth.

Remember, before the declaration of what was canon, everyone had their own disjointed collection of books with no authoritative position on what was the Word of God and what was not. If that WAS how it was meant to work, well that's just another argument for the necessity of the recognition of the authority of the Church.

Most "biblical scholars" are far more interested in their secular scholarship than in the Bible. As a result, they are frequently wrong because they discount the obvious, but miraculous, explanations for things.

Finally, from a brief look at the Ethiopian Bible, well, it doesn't exist. Now, I admit this was just a brief look at the shit source that is Wikipedia, but the claim is that they don't even have a compiled version of their own canon.

From the article:

"It is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in the churches' home countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea."

If true, that's hardly a good look. They considered it so inspired that they don't even have any copies. Maybe they're all locked up in the Vatican Library and that is why they are hard to find? Alternatively, God didn't preserve those extra-biblical books because they aren't His, and instead preserved the version that became the best-selling book in all of the history of Mankind. I suspect you'll take the former, but I'm obviously going to settle in with the latter.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't hit me with the "you're just brainwashed by the Vatican" or "do more research" or "you just don't want to accept the truth because it would contradict your beliefs". I don't even agree with the basic logical premises that are required to come to such a conclusion as the Bible being corrupted. This isn't a research issue or an "accept the truth". It just doesn't make sense to me for God to give us a scripture that can be corrupted. It's either all His, or it's all made up.

"Since the Council of Nicaea in fact removed the Book of Enoch from the Bible."

The Council of Nicaea, convened in AD 325, primarily addressed theological issues, such as the nature of Christ, and didn't have a specific mandate on the canon of Scripture. Canonical discussions evolved over subsequent councils and centuries.

"If they hadn’t removed any books, the Apocrypha Books, then it wouldn’t be a fact now would it."

The claim that the Book of Enoch was removed by the Council of Nicaea oversimplifies the canonization process. The Book of Enoch was influential in some early Christian circles but wasn't universally accepted due to theological divergences.

"Do some research and stop thinking the modern day Bible is 100% factual, and not edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican."

The assertion that the modern Bible is edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican oversimplifies the diverse history of biblical translations and interpretations. While translations have evolved, the core biblical texts have maintained substantial consistency across various Christian traditions.

"Any biblical scholar worth their weight knows the Book of Enoch is an original Book of the Bible."

The inclusion of unique books in the Ethiopian Bible reflects a localized canonization process that considered specific cultural and theological factors, as is common in different Christian traditions globally.

"Oh and the Dead Sea Scrolls say so as well, as does the non-Vatican-edited Ethiopian Bible; which happens to factually include all of the Apocrypha and additional, original gospels/books, that the Councils of Nicaea had removed/edited out."

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable insights into Second Temple Judaism and its textual landscape. However, they don't uniformly endorse or reject specific books but offer a broader understanding of the diversity of texts in circulation during that era.