All the comments say the same thing....we've been deceived

17?

What does this mean

😅🤣😂 Funniest comment of the week

That's why this seems to be a white hat operation

Yet Clandestine is strongly pro Israel.

How can he not see it's the same thing as Ukraine?

You're watching a show

I am from minnesota, and this display is very appropriate for that building and the people in there

Here's the extracted text from the image:

The next false flag Anonymous 5/23/2022, 00:39:54 No. 92497

The next false flag will be centered on the premise of malicious interdiction of nuclear source materials. It will not involve a nuclear device or nuclear detonation but rather a radiological threat. Nuclear source materials will be deliberately leaked to target areas to inflict severe injuries through radiation exposure. The real number of casualties as a result of these attacks will remain very low. The purpose is to create a new method of restricting freedom of movement and new policies that will enable the government to continue its expansion of power. The media will display images of attack survivors who will have burns and lesions across their skin. Videos depicting overwhelmed triage centers with victims vomiting or otherwise unresponsive will be shared on social media. The threat of radiation exposure - an invisible enemy - will be used as the primary vector.

An application modeled after COVID contact tracing will be installed on every mobile device that uses iOS or Android. This application will serve to notify the user about “potential hazardous exposure” and recommend actions they should take which include voluntary exposure testing. Additionally, cellular carriers will roll out automated SMS alerts that will have similar functionality. This application will interface directly with the UICC on mobile devices. If the user does not have this application installed, network connectivity will be prohibited. New policy will grant governmental agencies further access to metadata and geolocation data on every platform. Included in these policies will be backdoor legislation that bans the use of end-to-end encryption. This legislation will be identical in nature to the recently introduced S.3538 EARN IT act.

These attacks will be localized to a specific region. Triage centers will be set up in the affected areas through the deployment of the National Guard and coordinating members such as FEMA. These triage centers will see moderate traffic. The narrative will continue longer than any possible threat. Despite offering no protection or even relevancy against a radiological threat, you will see another wave of people wearing cotton surgical masks in not just target areas but the entire United States.

There will be severe disruptions to the Internet through the use of addition rather than negation. Alternative sources of information will become overwhelmed with content generated by convolutional neural networks that support the narrative or use a carefully crafted opposition. Platforms that are incompatible with this system will be suppressed entirely on the infrastructure level. There will be organic service disruptions as a result of excess traffic.

Videos will surface showing these triage centers empty with the personnel staffing them idle. This will threaten the narrative. The control of information is required for the campaign to be successful.

The perpetrator will not be an Islamic-affiliated group or evil I.N.C.E.L. domestic terrorist. It will have no relevancy to the ongoing Ukraine conflict, but the blame will fall on all of these groups. The fog of war will surround information relating to the origin, and this will be intentional.

The real attacks will be psychological. Fear will be exploited. Just like with the manufactured response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

NNSA, working with federal, state, and local partners, to hold major radiological incident exercise in Austin May 16-20
https://archive.ph/olWos

When was this originally posted?

Hurray!!!

Who did FDR pardon?

If you thought the covid mask Karens were annoying, wait until you see the nuclear fallout Karens

I agree with 99% of what he says. I am not certain if it's over for Israel if the public finds out though. I know many Zionist Christians that will say things like it is up to God to judge Israel for any evil acts that they have done. They are God's chosen people, they have a right to cause all this harm to the other people of the world

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate how passionate you are about this topic, and I think it’s awesome that we’re both digging into the history of the Bible. I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one and explain where I’m coming from.

1. Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
   You’re absolutely right that Erasmus was a smart and hardworking guy who devoted himself to the study of Scripture. But the fact that he only had access to a handful of Greek manuscripts from later periods does matter. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with only a few pieces—especially when the manuscripts you’re working with are from the 12th century or later, as his were. That’s why modern textual scholars rely on thousands of manuscripts, including ones much older than those Erasmus had, to get a fuller picture of what the original texts might have said.

Yes, Erasmus added to his notes and made corrections in later editions, but his work was still limited by the resources available to him at the time. This doesn’t make the Textus Receptus bad or unimportant—it was groundbreaking for its time—but it’s also not the final word on the New Testament text. We now have access to earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which help us go back even closer to the originals.

2. The Majority Text Argument
   I hear what you’re saying about the Majority Text—that 95% of manuscripts agreeing should count for something. But here’s the thing: it’s not just about numbers. A lot of those Byzantine manuscripts come from a later period when scribes had already made corrections and adjustments over time. That’s why they tend to agree more—they’re part of a shared tradition. But that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.

Imagine you had 95 friends telling you the same story, but they all heard it from a single person who made a mistake. The numbers don’t guarantee the truth; you’d want to compare their story to an earlier source. That’s why older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so valuable—they were copied closer to the time of the apostles, so they preserve details that might have been smoothed out or lost in later copies.

3. Doubts About the Canon
   It’s super important to remember that it wasn’t the Catholic Church that first tried to remove books from the Bible—it was Martin Luther. Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation because they didn’t fit neatly with his theology (he famously called James an “epistle of straw”). He even moved those books to a separate section called the “Disputed Books.” Other reformers had doubts about books too. This kind of proves the Vatican’s concerns—they had warned that if people started translating the Bible on their own, they might try to change it, and Luther kind of proved their point.

The Catholic Church had already finalized the canon by the 4th century, at councils like Hippo and Carthage, and they’d worked hard to protect it. The Reformers challenging books of the Bible centuries later shows that the Church’s concern about unauthorized changes wasn’t baseless.

4. Alexandria and Antioch
   I see where you’re coming from about Alexandria being tied to Gnosticism and philosophy. But Alexandria wasn’t just a hub for weird ideas—it was also home to some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. People like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria were based there, and they played huge roles in fighting heresies and shaping Christian doctrine.

Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus aren’t "corrupt" just because they came from that region. In fact, their differences from later Byzantine manuscripts often show that they’re closer to the original texts. The differences between text families are just part of how hand-copied manuscripts worked. Copyists weren’t perfect, but having different traditions actually helps scholars figure out what’s most likely original.

5. Suppression of the Textus Receptus
   I understand why it seems like the Catholic Church was suppressing the TR or translations based on it, especially during the Reformation. But it’s important to look at the context. The Church wasn’t trying to stop people from having the Bible—they were trying to prevent heretical teachings and bad translations from spreading. At the time, there were groups creating their own Bibles with altered texts, so the Church took steps to protect what they believed was the true faith.

Even before the Reformation, the Church encouraged translations, like Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to make Scripture accessible. They weren’t against the Bible being read—they were worried about people misinterpreting it or spreading errors. And let’s be real: Luther moving books to the “Disputed” section probably didn’t help calm their concerns!

6. Modern Bible Translations
   I get why you’re skeptical of modern translations like the NIV or ESV, but they aren’t based on just a single text type like Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars today use thousands of manuscripts from all over—Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and more. They don’t just go with the oldest or the majority; they compare everything to figure out the most accurate readings. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s a lot more thorough than just relying on one tradition.

7. God’s Hand in Preserving Scripture
   One thing I think we can totally agree on is that God has preserved His Word through history. Whether it’s through the Catholic Church, the Reformers, or modern scholarship, God’s hand has been there to ensure His message reaches us. Even when people like Luther or others tried to change things, the Bible as a whole remained intact. That’s something we can both celebrate.

The truth is, the Bible has always been a team effort—from the early Church councils to translators like Erasmus and the scholars working on modern versions today. It’s not about which group is better; it’s about how God has worked through all of them to give us His Word. I think the world would be a better place if everyone consistently read and followed the teachings of any of the Bible, any translation!

So while I see where you’re coming from, I think history shows that the Catholic Church, the Reformers, and modern scholars have all played roles in preserving Scripture. Instead of focusing on who got it wrong, maybe we can just be thankful that the Bible has survived everything it’s been through and is still changing lives today. What do you think?

It should be number 1 I guess

I almost feel like he is controlled opposition but he is actually on Trump's side.

For once I'm cheering for Israel

Ohhh. This makes sense

Alright, so here's the deal: that post makes a ton of claims that don’t really hold up when you look at the facts. Let’s break it down:

1. Textus Receptus vs. Latin Vulgate
   The Textus Receptus (TR) was put together by Erasmus in the 1500s. He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century. The Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome way earlier in 405 AD, used much older Greek and Hebrew texts that were closer to the originals. Also, Erasmus made mistakes, like in Revelation where he didn’t have the full Greek text, so he translated it backwards from Latin to Greek. So yeah, not perfect.

2. The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR
   The TR didn’t even exist until way after the Catholic Church had already figured out what books belonged in the Bible (this happened at councils in the 300s and 400s). By the time the TR showed up, the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.

3. Antioch vs. Alexandria
   The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.

4. The Vaudois and Latin Bibles
   This idea that the Vaudois had some super-early Latin Bible that was better than Jerome’s Vulgate? Yeah, there’s no real proof of that. There were Old Latin translations before Jerome, but they were all over the place—messy and inconsistent. That’s why Jerome made the Vulgate: to clean it up and make one solid version.

5. Majority Text vs. Minority Text
   The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest. A lot of Byzantine manuscripts were copied way later and had mistakes smoothed out over time. The Minority Text (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is smaller in number but older and closer to the originals. Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.

6. The Catholic Church and Access to the Bible
   The claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Bible? Not true. They made rules about translations because they didn’t want random people twisting Scripture to spread fake teachings. It wasn’t about hiding God’s Word; it was about keeping it accurate. And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.

7. Modern Translations Aren’t Based on “Corrupt” Texts
   Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.

8. The Catholic Church Preserved Scripture
   Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it. They were the ones copying and protecting it during chaotic times in history. The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened. The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.

Bottom Line: This whole post is trying to make it sound like the Catholic Church ruined the Bible and the TR is the only good version, but that’s not true. The Church worked hard to preserve Scripture, and modern translations aren’t based on “corrupt” texts—they’re based on the best evidence we have. History is way more complicated than this post makes it seem.

I am surprised actually. I would think that a dollar store would be thriving in today's economy

My guess is:

1. Nuke sniffing.

2. Attempt to get more government control

Sure broke it easily

You're kind of ignorant about history. Okay, so back in the 300s and 400s, popes like Damasus I, Innocent I, and Leo the Great were super important for figuring out which books belong in the Bible. Without them, it would’ve been chaos. There were literally hundreds of writings floating around the churches, many of them claiming to have been written by apostles.

Pope Damasus made a list of the books at a meeting in 382 and got St. Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). If he didn’t do that, people might’ve been using all sorts of random books. Then Pope Innocent I made sure everyone stuck to the list by writing letters about it. And Pope Leo the Great kept everything organized and made sure the Church stayed on track.

Without these guys, the Bible we know might not even exist. People would’ve been arguing over what counts as Scripture, and the Church would’ve been a total mess.

So it makes no sense that the church would hide scripture as scripture as we know it as today is whatever the Vatican declared to be scripture.
Nowhere does the book of Luke claim to be written by Luke but church tradition claims it was and later the church officially recognized it and declared it in the canon.

What is even more interesting, is I'm pretty certain the glass that he is breaking and peeling away is sugar glass, it is a fake kind of glass they use in movies.