The most amazing things about this topic to me are the facts around the original smallpox vaccine, and the legal mandates of vaccines in the 1800s along with the anti-vaccination protests and groups that fought against them. Educate yourself on the real history of vaccines. Here is a one resource to get started:
https://conspiracies.win/p/11ROC4yBZp/the-skeptics-guide-to-vaccines--/
There are two things going on with freemasonry. There is the outer layer of upstanding, often christian people. They are basically the sheep's clothing for a layer of wolves to operate.
A very good resource on this situation is "Proofs of a conspiracy" by Robison. This was written in the late 1700s by a freemason who was a christian. He saw the group change from a fraternity for having a bit of fun to a group that was infiltrated by the illuminati and used for cabal stuff:
https://archive.org/details/proofsofaconspiracy
I highly recommend this book. Yes, pray for guidance, but also do the research.
Also, research Albert Pike. There's absolutely no way I would join a group that honors this guy.
Oh no, it's the bot from conspiracies dot win. :(
Yeah, 2k is totally doable too. I was giving extra lines for fancy UI and the logic to tally the final results between machines. I have too much experience with estimation to trust my initial time frame assumptions. Its sadly way more realistic to multiply estimates by 2, 5, or even 10 ;)
Gotta love 17 million lines of code for what is essentially just a small multiple choice quiz + answer storage.
I have over 20 years of software dev experience, and I think it could easily be done in under 20,000 lines without much effort.
For comparison the linux kernel source is somewhere over 20 million lines. Am I supposed to believe that they implemented an operating system from scratch and then did decades of further development to improve it ???
Paper ballots are the only way to go, but if you are doing things electronically, this is beyond hideous.
For more context on Pasteur and his level of integrity I highly recommend "Bechamp or Pasteur":
https://archive.org/details/bechamporpasteur00hume_0
It is a book from the early 1900s that follows Pasteur and his peer Bechamp during the early germ theory research of the late 1800s. It paints Pasteur as a proud and fraudulent researcher who mainly thrived from political favors. I think biology research would be decades in the future if we would have listened to Bechamp instead of the guy who caused my milk to get the life boiled out of it.
I literally said "F'n A" out loud before clicking on this post to read the comments. Have an upvote!
I have just been learning about the Scofield bible/Jesuit stuff involving idolizing the modern day nation of "Israel" and dispensational teachings.
Does anyone have any references to theological teachings/writings from before Scofield/Ribera/Lacunza that dealt with these same topics but from a more biblical/true perspective?
What did people believe about these things before Ribera/Lacunza/Scofield?
I originally started getting into KJV because I noticed that the newer versions were always changing. I wanted a fixed, reasonable foundation that wasn't going to be changed out from under me. After 400 years, there is pretty good information about whatever weak points the KJV has, and I can adjust for that. With something produced last year, I have no idea how many mistakes are there, and how much time will go by before someone finds them.
Also, memorizing verses becomes an issue with modern bibles. If I would have memorized a bunch of NIV verses, should I then re-memorize them for ESV? What about in a couple of years when whatever new hot translation comes out? KJV isn't going anywhere. There's too much crusty, grumpy people like me who enjoy something in the style of Shakespeare.
Also, if I am quoting a verse or reading KJV out loud, I can adjust the words / grammar for my audience if it is needed.
Another fun freebie is that English made a distinction between 2nd person singular "you" vs 2nd person plural "you guys / y'all" in 1611. Back then, if the 2nd person pronoun starts with a "th", it is singular, like thee and thou. If it starts with a "y", like you, then it is 2nd person plural. This allows a grammatical distinction of the original Hebrew and Greek to be visible in English. This isn't possible in any modern version.
A fun example is Luke 22:31: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat"
In this verse, Satan is desired to sift 2nd person PLURAL "you guys / y'all" as wheat. Modern English readers probably interpret this verse as Satan just desiring to "sift" Peter as wheat.
Reposting from the other kjv thread:
Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.
I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )
The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )
The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.
The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.
There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.
The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.
The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.
Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.
Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.
Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.
A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.
None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.
There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.
These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.
What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.
The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.
Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?
Vatican and Sinai omit/change tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16. It is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh".
Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.
Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.
Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.
The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.
For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Received Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.
Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.
This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:
- Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
- Who owns the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctrine is impossible in the Received Text. )
- Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidence that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
- Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
- The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the received text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS!"
Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.
Thank you. :) I'm not especially insightful, I've just spent a lot of time trying to dig into this issue in the past. The information that I found made a noticeable difference in my and my family's life, and I believe the minority text has led to a lot of the problems of the modern western churches.
Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.
I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )
The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )
The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.
The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.
There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.
The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.
The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.
Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.
Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.
Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.
A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.
None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.
There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )
The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.
The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.
These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.
What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.
The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.
Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?
Vatican and Sinai omit/change tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16. It is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh".
Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.
However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.
Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.
Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.
The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.
For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Received Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.
Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.
This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:
- Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
- Who owns the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctrine is impossible in the Received Text. )
- Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidence that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
- Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
- The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the received text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS!"
Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.
Someone needs to finish the job.
Sounds like you have been listening to some demonic "authorities". Any real christian authority treats the word of God with respect. The devil's first recorded conversation was to make people doubt what God had said. His servants do the same.
You are on a Q forum, so I recommend considering that evil infiltrates "Jewish and Christian" authorities and uses them to teach that God's word is garbage. Its the same old devil with the same old lies.
“Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” (Isaiah 66:1-2, KJVA)
Even though Elohim is plural, it is used with the singular version of verbs. It is the "plural of majesty" and a hidden reference to the trinity.
Source: I read the bible in Hebrew.
Also, Jesus promised that not a single letter of the Law would perish. God preserves his word supernaturally.
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7, KJVA)
Yeah, maybe the CIA wants us to believe this.
I love older stuff too. Let me know if you have anything I should check out. :)
Reading "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison cleared up a lot of the confusion of "good mason" vs "bad mason". It was written in 1798 by a freemason who was a Christian who hated to see his men's club turned into a cabal tool:
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf
tldr, masons used to be non political, then they were infiltrated by the bavarian illuminati/other cabal types, and now they use the historic reputation of good masons as a cover for cabal recruiting/secret activity.
As an example, I have heard the story many times about the test where a mason is ordered to spit on the bible. No matter whether the mason does so or refuses, they are told that they did the right thing. The one who refuses is not told about the funkier stuff. The one who does spit is brought into cabal stuff slowly. Both responders think they are doing the "real" freemasonry.
For more details, check out "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison. Written in 1798 by a freemason who was a Christian who hated to see his men's club turned into a cabal tool:
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf
Proofs of a Conspiracy - John Robison.
Documents how masons went from basically a social club to being the tool of power hungry narcissists. Written by a high level mason in the 1700s. Robison was a real Christian who hated what was happening. He said that originally discussions of politics and religion were forbidden in the mason lodges.
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf
KJV is the King James Version. It is fairly well-known. It is based on the more historically used received text, and not on the error-prone minority text documents that are common today.
Look deeper.
Sar means prince.
Ysar means "has power like a prince."
Israel means "He has power like a prince towards God" or "He has power as a prince of God"
“...וַיֹּ֗אמֶר לֹ֤א יַעֲקֹב֙ יֵאָמֵ֥ר עוֹד֙ שִׁמְךָ֔ כִּ֖י אִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּֽי־שָׂרִ֧יתָ עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים וְעִם־אֲנָשִׁ֖ים וַתּוּכָֽל׃” (בראשית 32:29, OSHB)
“And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Genesis 32:28, KJV)
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD are wonderful alternatives to Linux too. Not sure how woke/compromised they are.
That book has some good information about the early experiments with vaccines and the resulting harmful effects. It also paints a much different picture of Pasteur than how he is commonly portrayed. Also, it's available for free on archive.org:
https://archive.org/details/bechamporpasteur00hume_0