The Petra Zone

I'll go first. Some people claim that when the Bible refers to wine, it really just means grape juice. This is false. Some say that people had to drink wine back then because the water in Israel was dirty and would make you sick if drank it. So wine was the only safe beverage available. This is also false.

Those stories are old fabrications from people who were opposed to alcohol in all forms, in all places. I don't think they were consciously lying, instead I think they were trying to reconcile their sincere beliefs with difficult facts. So they rationalized.

Now it's someone else's turn.

Noah only took two of each animal on the ark.

The forbidden fruit was an apple.

More to come I am sure....

Angels have feathery wings.

There's actually a whole book on the things that have slowly seeped into Christianity's realm that are completely abiblical.

There were 3 kings at the manger.

Baseball was mentioned right away in the Bible: In the Big Inning.

The world record for most people fitting into one vehicle was actually accomplished by the NT Church: They were all in one Accord.

The Bible says God helps those who help themselves. (Where?)

"hell" is a place of eternal torture for those who have never accepted Christ as Savior.......not in original text......something that can be attributed to modern church.

Yes, it should be Gehenna.

in the Greek...gehennah (the valley of Hinnom)

also translated......sheol, grave, tartaros and hades....nono of which translate as "eternal" punishment locations.

Some people will tell you that when Jesus said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, He was referring to a very small gate in Jerusalem's city wall. This myth insists that there was a very small gate (a doorway, really) in the city wall called "The Eye of the Needle," and that to get through it a camel had to be stripped of its entire load and pass through unburdened. This would tend to illustrate that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven but he can't take his wealth with him.

Actually, there's no scriptural or archaeological evidence that such a gate existed, and the whole story seems to be a late 19th or early 20th-century fabrication.

Chuck wrote:"hell" is a place of eternal torture for those who have never accepted Christ as Savior.......not in original text......something that can be attributed to modern church.

Really Chuck? You have the original text? Nobody now does. Jeremiah is the first on record to write down the words of God. Those were cut up and burned by the king. So, nobody has originals.

Next came the words of God again, which "God added to." Were they still the words of God? Yep. Were they original? Nope.

Know what? I don't want the original word of God, because I would likely be a practicing Jew, with no salvation, busting hell down the middle. I want the FULL counsel of God, which God has added to, to make it a complete representation of Him.

All of these modern translations make some sort of snide remark, like "this word (or verse) was not in the original manuscripts". How do these guys know? Do they have the same docs from around the world that scholars had in the 1500-1600s? Nope. They rely on the works of Wesscott and Horte, who were two black magic practicing Catholics, who got their works from Origin, who was another wacko, all of which did not believe in heaven, hell, the resurrection of Christ, etc. They were all pawns of governemt/Kings. All of their works came from Alexandian texts which were not legit copies of scripture. They had been changed by the kings to effect their rule. Anything from Egypt is from the devil in God's eyes. He told Israel not to trade horses, linen or get their wives from Egypt. Egypt = death. So why get your gospel from there?

I take my gospel from Paul, the man sent to us, who had ALL of his divinely inspired knowledge beamed straight to his brain by Jesus Christ himself. If Paul talks about hell, then that is as good as gold to me.

Then there was Jesus Christ who did mention it a few times himself. Then there was John the revelator who is the only man that has seen heaven and the things to come. He mentions it. Yeah, I wouldn't like like there isn't one.

The exact word was the exact burning trash dump just outside of Jerusalem. Hell is the bottomless pit and total seperation from God. In the end, the lake of fire and death are thrown into it. So, to mistranslate hell would mean that there would be a literal bottomless pit just outside of Jerusalem. Now, I haven't been there, but I know people that have been. And, I've seen lots of pics. But there ain't no bottomless pit there.

where should I start?

Oh yeah, it's the WORMS that are eternal...


Brent, some translations will say 'older manuscripts don't have this verse', because they simply don't-and these are the ones those translators are working from. They tend to be minor differences and the verse or variation is often footnoted.
The autographs are not extant and no one tries to say they are. But we do have more copies to work from than we once did. Christians also tend to go with the Septuagint, which is older than the Masoretic, and the Dead Sea Scrolls often agrees with it against the Masoretic (most notably in PS 22).

Origen was fascinating person was he not? Quite out there in some respects, particularly in his 'allegorical' method of interpretation. My my.

WAIT a minute....

ATHANASIUS IS OF THE DEVIL?!?!

That is a very troubling statement to make-unless you are a Jehovah's witness.

ATHANASIUS was a bishop of the Catholic church. I do not know much about him.

In the OT, there is a phenomenon. Whenever a verse first describes a person, place or thing, in many cases, it descirbes their impact on Christianity, or back then the children of Israel. The first time Egypt is mentioned, it is said that they will kill. Not just kill, but kill the man of God.

In the bible, Egypt is symbolic of the world and hell. Nothing good came out of Egypt to positively effect Israel, or Christians. The minute that Israel took wives, from Egypt, the king defied God and was soon off of the planet. This is not to say that God's people cannot be in that place or have some effect. But by and large the country and kings are known for their works as a whole, just as everyone's country is today.

Egypt was responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of Christians. Alexander the Great had pretty bloody hands when it came to Christians. Constantine, in order to maintain control of his kingdom, offered the poorest people gold or death to become his brand of Christian. His god was Baal. His sign was Baal. He never announced Jesus Christ as Lord. He had Origen right a version of the bible for him. He changed what he did not like. When groups who held on to the correct manuscipts like those from Antioch, then he killed them and destroyed their texts.

Antioch was the first place where Christians were named. They were near a school that taught literal interpretation of scripture. They also used the Greek of the common man, not the Greek used by the corrupters of the texts. The Average man could understand it that way, not just the elite and the philosophers. Antioch was the first to sent Paul,, who got his divine revelation from Jesus Christ himself, who came to the non-Jew to preach the Word. It is his gospel that we all believe, and his texts that we should use.

The Roman Empire has risen again. According to prophecy, it will again kill Christians, and ultimately try to battle God himself. Their fate has been sealed. They will not win. It matters not what "saint" lived there or when. Egypt and Rome always have been and always will be known as killers of Jesus, his disciples and Apostles.

Actually Athanasius was the Egyptian (and might I add Eastern-not Western Catholic) Bishop of Alexandria, a drafter of the Nicene Creed, champion of Homoousion and the divinity of Christ, and noted "Father of Orthodoxy". He was the first to use the full canon of scripture as we now see it. He stood Contra Mundum for the truths of the Trinity. It has been said that Augustine came to faith in part after reading Athanasius' biography of his friend Antony. Personally I consider him one of the all-time heros of the Church.
Much of our faith must be abandoned if it is to be believed that the Egyptian church, including Athanasius, was evil. And many of the modern attackers of Constantine are really Anti-Trinitarian attackers of Athanasius ironically.

Besides that, there are some basic problems with your argument.

First, Alexander the Great lived about 300 years before Christ. He therefore did nothing whatsoever to Christians, as he was already dead. Egypt was given to his general Ptolomy and Syria to Selucis, and they fought over Judea until Pompey took over in 63 BC. The Romans were completely in charge by the time of Jesus.


Origen and Constantine were not contemporaries either. Origen died before Constantine was even born, never mind when he saw his vision. Constantine was however an interesting figure-we will never know how true his conversion was, though much ink has been spilled in trying to assert one way or another (I do think that it can be said his mother was quite orthodox and that may have influenced him somewhat).

As an argument against him, it is often said that he made the empire Christian-this is incorrect, for though Julian was the only pagan emperor to come after him, that distinction belongs to Theodocius. Whatever mistakes he did make, they are part of our heritage, and cannot be extricated, as some seem to think. It seems obvious to me that Constantine ultimately did do the will of God, whether or not that was what he intended.


Thirdly, the early Church used the Septuagint (LXX) almost exclusively (so much so that it became distasteful to Jews-who had used it almost exclusively before that) and all Jewish men-including the Apostles-would have known it.

The LXX it is said was translated into Greek by seventy eminent Jewish scholars at the request of the Ptolomies. Nearly all the NT references to the OT (especially Matthew and Paul) are quoted directly from the 'Egyptian' LXX. The Fathers mention it as the scriptures of the Apostles. And again, the DSS often agree with it against the Masoretic.


Finally, You seem to be unaware of a beautiful prophesy made by Isaiah-which I believe do indeed show us the way things would turn out in the new testament period. After promising Judgement on Egypt, he says:

19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border.
20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.
21 So the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the LORD. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the LORD and keep them.
22 The LORD will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the LORD, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them.

23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together.
24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth.
25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance."
(Isaiah 19)

Egypt my People..?

BTW, I think a much better case could be made for Babylon being the centre of oppression and rebellion against God according to scripture and Jewish thought. Still the heritage of Abraham (and ultimately Jesus) is from there.