First sentence in this so called debunk - "the video starts with some guy talking Qanon shit about pedophiles, people in power, finance and these sort of stuff".
I warned about that. As I put it:
While Dimitrov is on the political left and even uses the word "QAnon" as an insult, his articles are still useful, as he provided actual evidence of his claims (meticulously cited with sources) rather than making unfounded assertions or just declaring something debunked out of hand.
Think I'll pass on this "debunk" by an obvious shill who sites the commies at Wikipedia of all places to prove his points (LMAO).
He cites ways more than Wikipedia, though. He posted a lot of solid evidence from many sources.
Gabriel Dimitrov wrote a multi-article series in which he refuted many claims made in "Europa: The Last Battle". While Dimitrov is on the political left and even uses the word "QAnon" as an insult, his articles are still useful, as he provided actual evidence of his claims (meticulously cited with sources) rather than making unfounded assertions or just declaring something debunked out of hand.
He even admitted that some aspects of the documentary (such as bringing attention to the Holodomor) are admirable, although it doesn't change the extreme level of inaccuracies to be found in the documentary.
Here are the links.
Also, keep the following in mind:
This is one of those times where each translation agrees across the board
Most, but not all (the Wycliffe translation doesn't for example). The ones that do all agree on "lust" as the translation do so because all Bible translations in use today post-date man-made doctrines that separated the concept of "lust' from the concept of "covetousness" and spun it off into its own separate sin (when in fact every instance of "lust" used to refer to sin in the Bible is referring to coveting something that either belongs to someone else or is otherwise expressly forbidden for one to have).
Technically, it could be said that "lust" isn't necessarily a mistranslation in and of itself, as long as one understands that it is covetousness and not a separate category of sin in its own right.
but you want to find the interpretation that agrees with how the satanic world wants us to behave
Not at all. The "Satanic World" wants no restrictions at all. Translating Matthew 5:28 correctly (with "covet" instead of "lust") and with the understand that it's referring specifically to married women), doesn't retract any of the many commandments restricting sexual behavior.
Also keep in mind that less restrictive doesn't always equal more Satanic; Satan wants man-made commandments to exist in Christianity in order to drive away potential believers and create stumbling blocks for believers.
The sad thing about Jimmy Fallon is that he doesn't seem to be a true ideologue like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, but he's an utter coward. He seems good-natured and like someone who, deep down, just wants to make people laugh, but he knows that the reason he has his current job is that Jay Leno got fired for making Obama jokes, and he doesn't want the same thing happening to him.
Norm MacDonald's account of what happened on the night Fallon was supposed to have him on confirms it. Fallon wanted to have MacDonald on, but was told not to due to MacDonald having been "cancelled" for his anti-woke humor. He had tears in his eyes when he went to MacDonald's dressing room and told him he couldn't be on the show.
He was even fairly nice to President Trump in the beginning, until he received backlash for "humanizing" him by ruffling his hair. Now, when they tell him to jump, he asks "How high?"
It's not about picking and choosing what works for one. There are many things that I've discovered in analyzing the Bible that are not what I would prefer. Some of them make life harder than it is for most people. But it's important to look critically for the original meaning of the words rather than taking English translations uncritically, whether the results wind up being more lenient or more strict than what most people believe (and there are quite a few of both instances).
Is there a version of the Bible that can be read without thinking like a 1600s aristocrat that also has accurate translations?
No one translation is accurate for every verse. Some are more correct than others. For example, the Wycliffe translation has the most accurate translation of Matthew 5:28, but it doesn't get every verse right. The best thing to do is (when trying to determine the true meaning of a verse) study interlinear comparisons of the English text to the original Hebrew or Greek, and to read multiple analyses of the Hebrew or Greek wording of the verse with a critical eye.
I like this translation fairly well:
https://www.servantsofyahshua.com/files/YSRB--2018---Final.pdf
Yep if you go looking for "analysis" that refutes clearly stated words in the Bible to justify the things the world promotes as "good" you will always find it.
What seems plainly worded in an English translation is not always worded in a way that means the same thing in the original Hebrew or Greek. It's always important to study the original meanings of the original words when trying to determine the true meaning of a Bible verse.
Don't worry though every single translation of the Bible is wrong on this point.
The Wycliffe translation gets it correct.
Matthew 5:28 is mistranslated in nearly all Bible translations, and the mistranslation has been the cause of many false man-made teachings for centuries.
Firstly, the word translated "lust" is the word used elsewhere in the Bible for "covet" (and covetousness implies actual intent to possess something, not mere admiration). Secondly, the word translated "woman" is a term used throughout the Bible for married women, not single ones. Thirdly, the context of the verse is adultery (not fornication). Fourthly, the Sermon on the Mount was a sermon about the Ten Commandments, one of which was the commandment not to covet anything that belongs to others.
A translation of the verse that preserves its true meaning would be:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a married woman to covet her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
You can find more detailed evidence here:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
Matthew 5:28 is mistranslated in nearly all Bible translations, and the mistranslation has been the cause of many false man-made teachings for centuries.
Firstly, the word translated "lust" is the word used elsewhere in the Bible for "covet" (and covetousness implies actual intent to possess something, not mere admiration). Secondly, the word translated "woman" is a term used throughout the Bible for married women, not single ones. Thirdly, the context of the verse is adultery (not fornication). Fourthly, the Sermon on the Mount was a sermon about the Ten Commandments, one of which was the commandment not to covet anything that belongs to others.
A translation of the verse that preserves its true meaning would be:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a married woman to covet her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
You can find more detailed evidence here:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
I happened across this post (containing the decode seen above) days ago when it was first posted, but didn't pay much attention to it at the time:
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZDqV7IOZ/possible-ultra-big-happening-nex/c/
Tonight, I happened to look at it again, and suddenly saw it in a new light due to all of the FTX news. If the FTX hack (which we first heard about on the 11th) was done through some sort of lwIP-related hack or exploit, this is a massive QProof.
Keep in mind that he might still be controlled, and might even be told to say these things. The Harley Pasternak situation especially comes across as staged.
Even after his alleged change of heart, his concerts were full of occult symbolism. Maybe he's turning on his masters, but maybe it's all a deception.
The Nazis were far left. It's right there in the name: National Socialism. Hitler was able to convince the people of Germany that he was the opposite of the communists and their only hope to avoid falling into communism, but it was just a ploy. Think of it sort of like Mitt Romney or John McCain pretending to be the only hope against leftists, then multiply it by 10. National Socialism was only slightly less socialistic than full-blown communism. The "National" part meant that it wasn't globalist, but neither are all communist governments (the CCP is very nationalistic, for example).
Hitler hating Stalin's brand of communism didn't mean that he wasn't socialist himself. Communists/socialists often hate each other due to differences in ideology (just look at the rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky).
Here's an excellent explanation of how National Socialism is indeed socialism (warning: it's from Razorfist, who uses a lot of strong language, but is brilliant at arguing his points).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SLqdhkvJo