Any Christians with Aspergers?

Post Reply New Topic

The KJV is based on the edition of the Greek texts by Erasmus of Rotterdam - even this edition was great scholarly achievement, since the 18th century it has been shown, that this first western printed edition is one of the least reliable one too.

Erasmus was a smart and funny guy and devout too, i'm sure he knew what he was doing.

You can buy a 'scholar' anywhere to discredit anything.

The issue isn't that Erasmus was dumb or had no ability, it is just that modern scholarship builds up, and the KJV, by being earlier, does not receive the benefits of this modern scholarship.

Sure, you can buy a scholar to discredit anything, but does this mean that all scholarship is invalid?

Yes

If this is in response to my comment about the scholars, um.... to make the point clearer. You can find a Christian out there to say any stupid point that there is under the son, but does this fact invalidate Christianity? No, because not all Christians are reliable, just like not all scholars are reliable. This does not mean that Christians are necessarily reliable on average or that scholars are, but the failings of some do not disprove the group. In the case of scholars, I would imagine that they are likely better sources of knowledge than most other groups.

There exist three main groups of versions of the New Testament: The Roman (Western) Group, the Byzantine Group and the Alexandrian Group. The scripture do differ within those groups and more between those groups.

More modern translations are mostly based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two manuscrips of the 4th century (and of exceptional quality of the hand writing and preservation). They differ from the Roman and Byzantine Group in some theological questions significantly. Both manuscripts were not accessible for scholars prior the 19th century.

So fare I am aware about the current discussion the gospels are secondary texts, compiled from two or three older texts with some additions for each gospel.

To make it short: The "authentic text" is simply unknown or lost. What we have today at the best are editions of the 4th century, made in a time, when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and therefore a clarification of the official doctrine was needed.



This is even difficult with modern languages of the same culture: The English word "mind" is hardly to translate into German. Any translation is also an interpretation; if it comes to technical or legal texts, this interpretation is often extreme close to the original text, but by a text, like the New Testament, full of metaphors, it very hard to say.

---

BTW: If the alleged creator of the universe was really that keen to preserve his words, why he did not took more care. We have much more reliable versions e.g. of the small naughty poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus (84 BC – 54 BC), which are, according to Christian faith of no importance for the "salvation" of mankind, than of the teachings of Jesus, which are by Christian faith the cornerstone of our mere existence.

Why an almighty god did not preserve his teaching better than this?

I never would call Erasmus of Rotterdam "dumb", he was certainly one of the smartest guys in Europe of his time. He did for his time a great work, but he was struck with the sources he had and they were weak.

Don't forget: His edition was the first printed edition ever.

Just so you know mosto, this section is dominated by diehard mockers and scorners, there's some exceptions like Dussel who just likes to debate intelligently, but you can really attract some scorn for faith here. Thats why there's not many christians post here. You get to know the names after a while. I haven't been successful in trying to explain to them that not every believer is an Apologist.

I know that nobody has the authentic original text, however, the issue is one of greater or lesser authenticity of statements found within the texts. The KJV has things in there that clearly were not there during major theological disputes of the older days. Newer versions have now removed these things removed. It would be nice to be an expert on these issues, however, one can comprehensibly rely somewhat on the claims already made by scholars in comparing different versions of the Bible.


I wouldn't trust an individual to look back to examine the metaphors of an original language. I merely meant issues where a word had multiple translations, and the translators picked a translation that seems more questionable.


Hmm... you are right. These texts are obviously inspired texts, and also part of the cornerstone of our salvation as well!! !

well I'm not a scholar but IMO (I'm still working on the humble bit) christianity is prophesied to shrivel, drift from a 'true' belief and it's members become a persecuted minority, (they use the term 'remnant') and even among those, you'll find fakes, so it makes sense to me...it's just the unfolding of the tale as aforetold.

Are you a Christian Postperson? It's not that I am unwilling to debate intelligently, it's just that it exhausts me

yes, i'm an xtian, i thought i said so earlier. it gets hard to recall what was said when threads get long.

You lack understanding on the nature of law itself. Common law and the Constitution holds income taxation to be illegal, that judges rule otherwise has NOTHING to do with law and everything to do with politics. There are many illegal things done in courts most every day that stand because the system is hopelessly corrupt, but they happen absent the support of law.

I put a gun in your face and take your money while wearing a fancy robe and title, do I operate with the validity of law or just the "force" of "the law?"

Discover the truth, expand your mind. Taking things literally will kill you if you're not careful.



Your last sentence undoes all of your reasoning. The power the government has comes from the people. The power is limited. The power is enumerated. No power not expressly granted may be exercised, or if it is, it is done absent the authority of the law. America is a fairly unique structure in the history of global political systems. Comparing it to others is a logic fallacy because the Founding Fathers created something unlike what the rest of the world had known. The concept of THE PEOPLE being sovereign was an alien concept to most of the world's leaders.

With that said, can we try to keep this thread on topic with what the OP wrote?

Could it be that you never read the "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe" of 1581?

zer0, do you think income tax is illegal in Australia too or only America, due to its constitution? By extention, do you believe that there is some sort of spiritual blessing on America's constitution which other countries don't have? Do you have a job, if so, do you pay income tax? If not, how else do you support yourself, with welfare or whatever? and yeah like you said I'm here to meet Christians with Aspergers to encourage and support each other in our walks with God

Correct, but I also said that the people as soverign was an alien concept to MOST of the world leaders, not ALL.



Well, now we're going to get complex, so I'll deal as best I can.

FIRST, I do not know the foundation of law for Australia nor the foundation upon which Australian "income taxation" claims to flow from. Therefore, it is a matter I cannot comment with any credibility. In America, the Founding Fathers deliberately prohibited income taxation in the Constitution. The only lawful way it can be done is to conduct a census and impose a "per head" tax on every American. This mandates a significant investment (sic) and effort by the federal government in order to tax Americans. They understood that the power to tax is the power to destroy. They rebelled against the Crown over taxation levels (among other issues) much lower than what Americans are burdened with today. So, it is a historical FACT that America was created free of any form of personal "income taxation."

SECOND, I do not understand what you are asking by "spiritual blessing?" ANY NATION should have its system of laws founded on a bedrock layer that cannot be changed by the ebb and flow of political or public opinion. Many nations do not have this, and the result is political chaos. The Founding Fathers wanted America to be capable of change, but not in a manner that would permit tyranny of the majority or any other unwise evolutionary paths based on the passing philosophies of the day. As such, we have a hierarchy of law. We have things that have more legal weight than others based on where it comes from. Where many nations have regime changes every few years because rule comes from strength, America has suffered unending attacks by lawyers who seek to debate the proverbial "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" in an effort to impose a standard that is utterly juxtaposed to what the literal and historical translation of the Constitution establishes. If other nations fell short in this matter by how they set up their systems of government, that is the short-sightedness of their founders. Nothing prevents them from adopting a more permanent and reliable standard for their government and legal system if they really want to fight for it.

THIRD, I work, and I pay the income tax only under the threat of violence. I know it is illegal, but the IRS does not take you to court...they send armed thugs to make your life a living hell and then haul you into courts they own (not part of the federal system) where you are tried under their rules by their judges. It is an abomination to everything the American legal system was supposed to stand for.

What you, and many others, do not understand is that America lasted over 100 years WITHOUT an income tax. You know what? ALL THE BILLS GOT PAID. America taxed imports and exports. The PROFIT of corporations and other businesses were subject to taxation. An individual had to pay taxes on gains from WEALTH (i.e., you make $100 on an investment, that's taxable). There was never a tax on a mans WAGES because it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the united States has ruled to this effect long before the IRS existed. And as I said, ALL THE BILLS GOT PAID. There was more than enough "income" from the established constitutional means of taxation and revenue generation to handle the nation's finances.

The IRS was created by an act of fraud. The book, "The Law That Never Was" establishes with certified documents that the constitutional amendment which allegedly creates the income tax was never ratified by the required number of states. At the time, the Secretary of State lied and said the amendment was ratified when the documents prove that it had not been. A fundamental maxim of law is that fraud cannot prosper. However, this is one of the first disgraces of a corrupted American legal system. Based on this evidence, the legitimacy of the income tax was challenged, and the court over that case DID NOT rule that income tax was legal, but rather the court ruled as follows....because income tax has been in place for over 40 years (at that time), it would be against the interest of public policy to rule it unconstitutional and dismantle the taxation system and the IRS. THIS HOLDING IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW. The federal government was exposed in an act of fraud and the court REFUSED to correct the wrong. Since this case, EVERY CASE dealing with this issue refuses to readdress the constitutional issue. Rather those cases always cite the original case where the court actually admits that income taxation is unconstitutional but illegally upholds it for public policy reasons.

Another issue that most Americans are ignorant of is where "income tax" dollars go. The income tax was created at about the same time as the "Federal Reserve Bank." The Federal Reserve is a private bank, it is not an entity of the United States Government. The power to print/coin all money is the sole authority of Congress, by the Constitution. Without a constitutional amendment, this power was given to a group of private bankers. These bankers LEND the money to the United States Government at usury when the United States Government has the authority to print however much money it wants. The real evil of this system is that it is ILLEGAL for anyone (INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT) to pledge another man's assets as surety for a loan without holding a written power of attorney granting such power. Where did the United States Government get the authority to BORROW money from ANYONE and pledge MY assets and earnings as collateral? Why is my government borrowing money when it has the power to print as much as it wants?

Every penny of the "income tax" goes to paying off past debts to the Federal Reserve Bank. Not one cent goes to any program of public benefit.

Police, fire, EMS, municipal services, parks, schools....paid by real estate taxes to your city/county.
Roads....gas tax.
Military....most all funding covered by taxes on corporations.

Not a penny of the "income tax" goes to anything we get as a benefit. Depending on where you live in the USA, federal + state + county + local taxes can take over 60% of what you earn on the day you get paid.

If we eliminated the income tax, arrested the members of the Federal Reserve Bank and charged them with insurrection and treason, and mandated government limit its spending to the funds actually coming in via legitimate taxation, a lot of the evils the United States has done of late would evaporate overnight because there would be no way to fund them.

Give a man a blank check....don't be surprised by how much he spends.