dothackers.net

Both Loose Change and Zeitgeist have been thoroughly debunked by numerous independent groups. The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory has been complete discredited and to day has yet to actually prove even the smallest of its conjectures. It is a conspiracy meant to make more out of an event than it actually was, as are all conspiracies, and it is totally false. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by a homicidal group of terrorists who were part of an organization that has attacked us before on more than on occasion and that's all there is to it.

There were no bombs.
There were no missiles.
There was no insider plotting.
There were no secret suicidal agents.
There were no men in brown uniforms.
There were no super secret bases where the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 are being held captive.
There was no US government conspiracy.

The September 11 attacks was a scenario in which complacency, mismanagement of intelligence, and ignoring prior warnings converged with the inevitable product of America's actions during the aftermath of the Russo-Afghan war accompanied by several other instances in which the United States and other western countries attempted to intervene in the affairs of middle-eastern countries. Not to mention Al-Qaeda is a group of religious fanatics who added God as one of their reasons to start killing people.

I still think something was up on 9/11, but that is my opinion.

I guess another question would be why do people read the NIV? Sure it is easier to read, but does it have everything?
Compare verses like Matthew 18:11 from the KJV, and the NIV.
Also compare Isaiah 14:12, and Rev 22:16 from the KJV, and the NIV. You shall see some problems.

King James Version was translated differently than newer translations. That is why some verses appear in the KJV while not appearing in newer translations and why the translations themselves might be different. Matthew 11:18, for example. is believed to have been added later since it doesn't appear in the best earliest Greek manuscripts they have from which to translate. I wouldn't really recommend the KJV to anyone wanting a good translation, honestly.

You can believe there was some vast conspiracy behind 9/11 still, but there's no real evidence for it that hasn't already been thoroughly and repeated refuted. Believing despite all of this is just being delusional.

King James Version was translated differently than newer translations. That is why some verses appear in the KJV while not appearing in newer translations and why the translations themselves might be different. Matthew 11:18, for example. is believed to have been added later since it doesn't appear in the best earliest Greek manuscripts they have from which to translate. I wouldn't really recommend the KJV to anyone wanting a good translation, honestly.

I also heard that KJV in general is hard to understand. Not understand the translations but trying to understand what is actually being said is the difficult part.

Has anyone ever actually read the King James version?

shugo_lover wrote:Has anyone ever actually read the King James version?

Yes. I also own a copy of the New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Of all of them, I would recommend them in this order: NASB > NIV > NKJV > KJV. Stay far, far away from The Message; it's atrocious.

S1lentOp wrote:

shugo_lover wrote:Has anyone ever actually read the King James version?

Yes. I also own a copy of the New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Of all of them, I would recommend them in this order: NASB > NIV > NKJV > KJV. Stay far, far away from The Message; it's atrocious.

Atrocious, how?

Keyaki wrote:

S1lentOp wrote:

shugo_lover wrote:Has anyone ever actually read the King James version?

Yes. I also own a copy of the New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Of all of them, I would recommend them in this order: NASB > NIV > NKJV > KJV. Stay far, far away from The Message; it's atrocious.

Atrocious, how?

Let's take the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:7-13) and compare The Message version with the New American Standard Bible version, shall we?

The Message:
The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


New American Standard Bible:
And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Pray, then, in this way:
'Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'

Wow, thats a big differance.

Forgive me of my simpleness, you already know about my Bible-related ignorance.

So are you saying that the Messenger and the NASB prayers are different depending on the "type of Father" you believe in?

As far as bibles go I read the KJV only. I saw some stuff in the NIV that failed. Sure old English takes time getting use to, but all you have to do is slow things down.
The biggest fail in the NIV in my opinion is

NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
NIV Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

KJV Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

It is the same right? No. Isaiah in the NIV said "morning star", and according to Rev Jesus is the morning star. I'm sure Lucifer is the one that was suppose to be mention.

Sources
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
If you have both books read, and compare for yourself.

Why leave out any verses? There are many things that are not in newer versions of the bible. This proves that bibles have been changed. The word of God should not be perverted. I know in the NIV that some things are there, but are footnotes yet still. Why skip 11, but have 10, and 12?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

I may be wrong, but wasn't the KJV translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Hebrew Bible there for making it very accurate?

S1lentOp wrote:

Keyaki wrote:

S1lentOp wrote:

shugo_lover wrote:Has anyone ever actually read the King James version?

Yes. I also own a copy of the New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Of all of them, I would recommend them in this order: NASB > NIV > NKJV > KJV. Stay far, far away from The Message; it's atrocious.

Atrocious, how?

Let's take the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:7-13) and compare The Message version with the New American Standard Bible version, shall we?

The Message:
The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


New American Standard Bible:
And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Pray, then, in this way:
'Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'

I thought you weren't supposed to say "Heavenly Father" because it implys that you have more than one father. Suposedly your only suppost to call him "Father" because you only have one father.
I may be wrong about this, but I just remeber hearing this somewere before.

But "Lucifer" itself is a change. In the original Hebrew (and subsequent Greek translation), it was "morning star". Ask your Jewish friends. The word "Lucifer" in this verse comes from a later Latin translation because "light bringer" was a term for Venus, the morning star. For the King James Bible they translated most of the Old Testament directly but still used their (flawed) understanding of the Latin version in the process. Modern bibles reflect an improved linguistic understanding.

On the subject of Lucifer, help me clarify. From what I've read, wasn't Satan originally Lucifer? Lucifer was his name when he was a Babylonian king before he fell from grace. Am I right?

Keyaki wrote:On the subject of Lucifer, help me clarify. From what I've read, wasn't Satan originally Lucifer? Lucifer was his name when he was a Babylonian king before he fell from grace. Am I right?

I thought his name was always Lucifer and names like Satan were just different ways to say it. Like a different language or something.

Man this just shows that I need to start going to church again
-_-'

That's just what I read of Wikipedia.

and don't worry, I've already stated that I barely ever read the Bible nor do I go to church that often...so you're not alone...

Just read this:
http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html

Great find, Kuukai!

This proves the word of God has been alter. Also can't anyone published a KJV yet no one can copyright it? I hear the people who owns the NIV has copyrights to other dark books. I will research some more before I confirm anything.

zaseo wrote:This proves the word of God has been alter. Also can't anyone published a KJV yet no one can copyright it? I hear the people who owns the NIV has copyrights to other dark books. I will research some more before I confirm anything.

There are plenty of literal bibles...

It's impossible to copyright something that was written hundreds of years go.