Future Videos
January 3, 2018
"Show me yours..."
Welcome Gentle Viewer,
Unlike Mozart who wrote pop tunes for Figaro and for the Magic Flute, I know that I am incapable of such creations. While Yours Truly is not known for acknowledging any interest in catchy songs that are generally vapid, it is a pleasure to mention Scotty Dynamo’s song “Show me yours”.
Over the previous two years, I’ve written extensively of the “highschoolers”, both as a group and as individuals.
Of course, intellectually, I knew I was not, nor could I ever be part of the group: their shared experiences are tribal and an importance aspect of their development- this limited to time and place.
Yet, I have always looked forward to seeing them, for I never know where they may lead me.
Recently, Apprentice RJ wanted to show me a video, and I reluctantly agreed, as passively watching is less interesting than active conversation.
The video was about 15 seconds and the actions of the participants are unimportant, but for the first time, in a moment, I felt that I didn’t belong to the group.The experience, Gentle Researcher, was cathartic.
This short video led a moment of feeling, which led to some reflection,
I now understand why symbols are extensively used in Freemasonry.
If all profound Occult insights are this haphazard, we can understand both why the Occult is not widespread and why it is marginalized.
The intellect understands the symbols and the allegories of Freemasonry in a general and unattached way, but the emotional impact makes these symbols and allegories specific and personal.
We now know why the 3rd degree cannot be communicated, it must be experienced emotionally, it must be personal.
We presume the exoteric background of the 3 degrees, the construction of Solomon’s temple, was chosen for a specific reason, to put the candidate in a certain mental state.
The sun, the moon, the beehive, the blazing star and the rough ashlar are the only natural objects in FM, everything else is man made, everything else is unnatural.
Of all the natural objects, only the rough ashlar is transformed into the smooth ashlar. Of course, the transformation is unseen.
We presume this change applies to the Apprentice, as occurring through the 3 degrees, and if not, then throughout the Apprentice’s or Mason’s life.
The working tools of operative masonry are used in speculative masonry.
To create an acceptable block of stone, the tools must be used in a specific way, and we presume that certain tools, or instruments, are applied to the Apprentice to effect, not a physical transformation, but a change of perception.
The symbols don’t change, only the way they are understood changes.
We accept the explanations of the symbols, with the goal to make good men better, but the teachings of brotherly love and worship of the Deity are not limited to freemasonry, but are found in most religions.
If the claim of making good men better is viable, then the answer to the how must be found not in what is explained, but what is not discussed, what is ignored, what is obscured.
What is hidden is perceived by curiosity first, then understood by the intellect, and finally felt by emotions.
We now know that memorizing the rituals and the explanations of the symbols does not make one a Master Mason, if only because the rituals and explanations have been changed, and can be changed.
Since the rituals and explanations can be changed, and if memorization is synonymous with being a Master Mason, then the meaning of being a Master Mason changes from times and places, that is, it cannot be universal.
This fact alone means that whatever else freemasonry is, it is not dependent on the rituals and symbols.
The rituals and symbols are the products of Freemasonry.
Therefore, the rituals and the explanations for the symbols are the creation of a Master Mason, whether named Solomon, Hiram or the Great Architect of the Universe.
The phrase show me yours, i’ll show you mine implies full disclosure on both parties.
Of course, knowledge has no obligation to ignorance, so we cannot expect a society with secrets to disclose those secrets.
In conclusion, we rightly consider Freemasons to be certified “G”.
If the Gentle Viewer enjoyed our chat, then please subscribe to our Youtube channel.
We can say that these the intellect
Unlike Mozart who wrote pop tunes for Figaro and for the Magic Flute, I know that I am incapable of such creations. While Yours Truly is not known for acknowledging any interest in catchy songs that are generally vapid, it is a pleasure to mention Scotty Dynamo’s song “Show me yours”.
Over the previous two years, I’ve written extensively of the “highschoolers”, both as a group and as individuals.
Of course, intellectually, I knew I was not, nor could I ever be part of the group: their shared experiences are tribal and an importance aspect of their development- this limited to time and place.
Yet, I have always looked forward to seeing them, for I never know where they may lead me.
Recently, Apprentice RJ wanted to show me a video, and I reluctantly agreed, as passively watching is less interesting than active conversation.
The video was about 15 seconds and the actions of the participants are unimportant, but for the first time, in a moment, I felt that I didn’t belong to the group.The experience, Gentle Researcher, was cathartic.
This short video led a moment of feeling, which led to some reflection,
I now understand why symbols are extensively used in Freemasonry.
If all profound Occult insights are this haphazard, we can understand both why the Occult is not widespread and why it is marginalized.
The intellect understands the symbols and the allegories of Freemasonry in a general and unattached way, but the emotional impact makes these symbols and allegories specific and personal.
We now know why the 3rd degree cannot be communicated, it must be experienced emotionally, it must be personal.
We presume the exoteric background of the 3 degrees, the construction of Solomon’s temple, was chosen for a specific reason, to put the candidate in a certain mental state.
The sun, the moon, the beehive, the blazing star and the rough ashlar are the only natural objects in FM, everything else is man made, everything else is unnatural.
Of all the natural objects, only the rough ashlar is transformed into the smooth ashlar. Of course, the transformation is unseen.
We presume this change applies to the Apprentice, as occurring through the 3 degrees, and if not, then throughout the Apprentice’s or Mason’s life.
The working tools of operative masonry are used in speculative masonry.
To create an acceptable block of stone, the tools must be used in a specific way, and we presume that certain tools, or instruments, are applied to the Apprentice to effect, not a physical transformation, but a change of perception.
The symbols don’t change, only the way they are understood changes.
We accept the explanations of the symbols, with the goal to make good men better, but the teachings of brotherly love and worship of the Deity are not limited to freemasonry, but are found in most religions.
If the claim of making good men better is viable, then the answer to the how must be found not in what is explained, but what is not discussed, what is ignored, what is obscured.
What is hidden is perceived by curiosity first, then understood by the intellect, and finally felt by emotions.
We now know that memorizing the rituals and the explanations of the symbols does not make one a Master Mason, if only because the rituals and explanations have been changed, and can be changed.
Since the rituals and explanations can be changed, and if memorization is synonymous with being a Master Mason, then the meaning of being a Master Mason changes from times and places, that is, it cannot be universal.
This fact alone means that whatever else freemasonry is, it is not dependent on the rituals and symbols.
The rituals and symbols are the products of Freemasonry.
Therefore, the rituals and the explanations for the symbols are the creation of a Master Mason, whether named Solomon, Hiram or the Great Architect of the Universe.
The phrase show me yours, i’ll show you mine implies full disclosure on both parties.
Of course, knowledge has no obligation to ignorance, so we cannot expect a society with secrets to disclose those secrets.
In conclusion, we rightly consider Freemasons to be certified “G”.
If the Gentle Viewer enjoyed our chat, then please subscribe to our Youtube channel.
We can say that these the intellect
The Case for Christ
Welcome Gentle Viewer
Recently, we saw the movie the case for christ, and expected it to be an apologetic film, and we were not disappointed. Unfortunately, copies of the book were not available at the library, so our commentary is limited to the movie.
Similar to the rambling atheistic writings of the church fathers, the movie discusses the crucifixion, the 500 witnesses, early martyrs and other trivial points that have nothing relevant to the resurrection.
Whether or not Nietzsche had problems with his lutheran minister father is irrelevant to the inquiry.
Nietzsche was a competent philologist, so when he writes that difficulties lurk behind every NT word, the reader should take notice.
Of course, reasonable people may disagree with Nietzsche's criticisms of modern Christianity.
As Apprentice Tyler correctly observed many years ago, the two parts of modern Christianity are recruiting and fundraising.
We have repeatedly discussed our skepticism of atheist positions, since these claims require knowledge, or assumptions, or revelations, beyond human reason.
We are not surprised that atheists can become theists, and vice versa.
However, we suspect that intellectually honest individuals, or agnostics, never change their opinions, as conclusive evidence, either for god, or against god, is forever lacking.
In conclusion to this part, not knowing, or ignorant, is not an attractive quality in individuals, and fatal for film protagonists: as there is no drama for someone to honestly state for 2 hours that they don’t know.
Moving on.
We are told there are over 5,400 greek manuscripts of the NT, as compared to the handful of manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle, among other ancient authors.
Initially this seems like significance evidence for the antiquity of the Bible, but, in reality, this number is not extraordinary, as bibles in eastern europe were still being copied by hand as late as the 19th century.
The Sinai Codex was found in the 1840s and is dated to the 4rd century and is considered the oldest and most extensive Biblical manuscript in existence.
For whatever reasons, the monks at the monastery did not appreciate this supposedly ancient text, as it was rescued from the trash.
Moving on.
As stated in the movie, the central issue is the resurrection, and no one, according to the canonical gospels saw the resurrection.
In Matthew 28:6 the angle says He is not here.
In Mark 16:6 the young man says He is not here.
In Luke 24:6 two men say He is not here.
In the 4th gospel, Mary Magdalene sees the stone removed from the entrance and leaves to find Simon Peter.
Therefore, there are no witnesses to the Resurrection.
However, there are witnesses of the risen Christ.
Both Math 26:48 and Mark 14:43 relate that Judas identified Jesus, so that the soldiers could arrest him.
Yet, Jesus taught to the crowds and in the temple for many years, so thousands of people and, possibly hundreds of roman soldiers had seen him.
Should we conclude that, regardless of of their military discipline and other abilities, roman soldiers, as a whole, were incapable of remembering faces?
I have repeatedly related my inability to distinguish Apprentices Brayden and Denver, whether together or individually, yet, my interactions with them are more than casual observations. If Jesus was a twin, we would expect that the soldiers would need help identifying Jesus. The purpose of identification satisfactorily explains Judas’ role.
Interestingly, there is an indication of a twin in the gospel of john:
11:16 and 21:2 tells the reader that apostle thomas, was called didymus, which means thomas called twin, or, since thomas means twin, twin called twin.
Moving on.
In matthew 27:27 and john 18:3 we read that a band of soldiers arrested Jesus. These translations tells the reader nothing, but one we learn that a cohort is 600 men, simple division tells us that for every apostle Pilate sent 50 men. The gentle viewer can determine for himself if this number was inadequate, sufficient, or overkill.
Moving on.
Since the purpose of crucifixion, like hanging, is death, we will assume that the crucifixion was deadly, but was Jesus on the cross remains a valid question.
Both Matthew 27:32 and Mark 15:21 state the soldiers compelled Simon to carry Jesus’ cross, and gave him vinegar and crucified him. The pronouns “him” apply to the noun “Simon”, not to Jesus.
Luke also has simon carry the cross, but keeps the narrative on Jesus, so there is no confusion who is being crucified.
John does not relate that simon carried the cross, however, chapter 19 verse 23 states that the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments into 4 parts, one for each soldier.
Therefore, there are 4 soldiers at the crucifixion, the gentle viewer can decide if this number of soldiers is sufficient to insure order, to prevent zealots from rescuing Jesus.
Moving on.
All gospels agree that the charge against Jesus was his claim to be king of the Jews, it was written in greek, latin and hebrew.
Since Herod was king, any legitimate claim of kingship would be treason.
The Latin abbreviation INRI is still seen on roman crucifixes.
However, in the orthodox church, the title above the cross is “King of Glory”.
John 6:15 tells that when Jesus realized that the people were going to make him king, he left them.
later, in John 12: 13, Jesus is proclaimed as the king of Israel on his entrance into Jerusalem.
Judah is not synonymous with Israel.
Since israel did not exist, there was no concern with sedition.
The actual charge was not being king of Israel, a non existent country, but being king of the Jews, the position occupied by Herod.
Interestingly, in the 4th gospel, unlike the other 3 gospels, Pilate doesn't ask Jesus if he is the king of Jews.
Moving on.
Apologetics rightfully remains a minor aspect of modern Christianity, as any serious inquiry into the origins of christianity, or evidence for the resurrection, will be met with an impenetrable wall.
Ultimately, all that we “know” about christianity’s origins is found either in books or in tradition, there is no other facts.
Whereas modern christians know they are saved, it is ironic they cannot know the origins of their sacred texts.
The resurrection remains central to Christianity, just as Atlantis’ sinking is integral to that story.
Of course, there is only two versions of Atlantis, and both are from Plato.
Therefore, all that has been written about Atlantis that are not quotations from Plato is speculation and supposition.
The Gentle viewer may wish to know Yours Truly position regarding the case for Christ, and as always, my opinions are worthless.
Gratefully, we have facts, not opinions: I have not denied I am a Christian anymore than I have denied I am an American.
Various people have suggested that I am an atheist or a Satanist.
Interestingly, they have never claimed that I’m not an American, although there is no evidence that can be independently verified that I was born in America.
In conclusion to this part, philology is our friend.
I have freely discussed historical Christianity with certain individuals who do not have opinions, lest I run in vain.
At times, I have discussed historical Christianity reluctantly, with those individuals who have not only opinions, but convictions, on what Christianity is and what it is not.
Because I don’t understand the modern importance of getting saved, I have never sought anyone’s salvation. Frankly speaking; I don’t care.
For those of us with more than a passing knowledge of verifiable history, we rightly question both the validity of “getting saved” and the its resultant worldview: the tribalism of us versus them.
In conclusion, attempting to use the Bible as evidence results in more skepticism than without it.
As always the gentle listener will reach his own informed conclusions regarding both historical Christianity and modern Christianity.
Recently, we saw the movie the case for christ, and expected it to be an apologetic film, and we were not disappointed. Unfortunately, copies of the book were not available at the library, so our commentary is limited to the movie.
Similar to the rambling atheistic writings of the church fathers, the movie discusses the crucifixion, the 500 witnesses, early martyrs and other trivial points that have nothing relevant to the resurrection.
Whether or not Nietzsche had problems with his lutheran minister father is irrelevant to the inquiry.
Nietzsche was a competent philologist, so when he writes that difficulties lurk behind every NT word, the reader should take notice.
Of course, reasonable people may disagree with Nietzsche's criticisms of modern Christianity.
As Apprentice Tyler correctly observed many years ago, the two parts of modern Christianity are recruiting and fundraising.
We have repeatedly discussed our skepticism of atheist positions, since these claims require knowledge, or assumptions, or revelations, beyond human reason.
We are not surprised that atheists can become theists, and vice versa.
However, we suspect that intellectually honest individuals, or agnostics, never change their opinions, as conclusive evidence, either for god, or against god, is forever lacking.
In conclusion to this part, not knowing, or ignorant, is not an attractive quality in individuals, and fatal for film protagonists: as there is no drama for someone to honestly state for 2 hours that they don’t know.
Moving on.
We are told there are over 5,400 greek manuscripts of the NT, as compared to the handful of manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle, among other ancient authors.
Initially this seems like significance evidence for the antiquity of the Bible, but, in reality, this number is not extraordinary, as bibles in eastern europe were still being copied by hand as late as the 19th century.
The Sinai Codex was found in the 1840s and is dated to the 4rd century and is considered the oldest and most extensive Biblical manuscript in existence.
For whatever reasons, the monks at the monastery did not appreciate this supposedly ancient text, as it was rescued from the trash.
Moving on.
As stated in the movie, the central issue is the resurrection, and no one, according to the canonical gospels saw the resurrection.
In Matthew 28:6 the angle says He is not here.
In Mark 16:6 the young man says He is not here.
In Luke 24:6 two men say He is not here.
In the 4th gospel, Mary Magdalene sees the stone removed from the entrance and leaves to find Simon Peter.
Therefore, there are no witnesses to the Resurrection.
However, there are witnesses of the risen Christ.
Both Math 26:48 and Mark 14:43 relate that Judas identified Jesus, so that the soldiers could arrest him.
Yet, Jesus taught to the crowds and in the temple for many years, so thousands of people and, possibly hundreds of roman soldiers had seen him.
Should we conclude that, regardless of of their military discipline and other abilities, roman soldiers, as a whole, were incapable of remembering faces?
I have repeatedly related my inability to distinguish Apprentices Brayden and Denver, whether together or individually, yet, my interactions with them are more than casual observations. If Jesus was a twin, we would expect that the soldiers would need help identifying Jesus. The purpose of identification satisfactorily explains Judas’ role.
Interestingly, there is an indication of a twin in the gospel of john:
11:16 and 21:2 tells the reader that apostle thomas, was called didymus, which means thomas called twin, or, since thomas means twin, twin called twin.
Moving on.
In matthew 27:27 and john 18:3 we read that a band of soldiers arrested Jesus. These translations tells the reader nothing, but one we learn that a cohort is 600 men, simple division tells us that for every apostle Pilate sent 50 men. The gentle viewer can determine for himself if this number was inadequate, sufficient, or overkill.
Moving on.
Since the purpose of crucifixion, like hanging, is death, we will assume that the crucifixion was deadly, but was Jesus on the cross remains a valid question.
Both Matthew 27:32 and Mark 15:21 state the soldiers compelled Simon to carry Jesus’ cross, and gave him vinegar and crucified him. The pronouns “him” apply to the noun “Simon”, not to Jesus.
Luke also has simon carry the cross, but keeps the narrative on Jesus, so there is no confusion who is being crucified.
John does not relate that simon carried the cross, however, chapter 19 verse 23 states that the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments into 4 parts, one for each soldier.
Therefore, there are 4 soldiers at the crucifixion, the gentle viewer can decide if this number of soldiers is sufficient to insure order, to prevent zealots from rescuing Jesus.
Moving on.
All gospels agree that the charge against Jesus was his claim to be king of the Jews, it was written in greek, latin and hebrew.
Since Herod was king, any legitimate claim of kingship would be treason.
The Latin abbreviation INRI is still seen on roman crucifixes.
However, in the orthodox church, the title above the cross is “King of Glory”.
John 6:15 tells that when Jesus realized that the people were going to make him king, he left them.
later, in John 12: 13, Jesus is proclaimed as the king of Israel on his entrance into Jerusalem.
Judah is not synonymous with Israel.
Since israel did not exist, there was no concern with sedition.
The actual charge was not being king of Israel, a non existent country, but being king of the Jews, the position occupied by Herod.
Interestingly, in the 4th gospel, unlike the other 3 gospels, Pilate doesn't ask Jesus if he is the king of Jews.
Moving on.
Apologetics rightfully remains a minor aspect of modern Christianity, as any serious inquiry into the origins of christianity, or evidence for the resurrection, will be met with an impenetrable wall.
Ultimately, all that we “know” about christianity’s origins is found either in books or in tradition, there is no other facts.
Whereas modern christians know they are saved, it is ironic they cannot know the origins of their sacred texts.
The resurrection remains central to Christianity, just as Atlantis’ sinking is integral to that story.
Of course, there is only two versions of Atlantis, and both are from Plato.
Therefore, all that has been written about Atlantis that are not quotations from Plato is speculation and supposition.
The Gentle viewer may wish to know Yours Truly position regarding the case for Christ, and as always, my opinions are worthless.
Gratefully, we have facts, not opinions: I have not denied I am a Christian anymore than I have denied I am an American.
Various people have suggested that I am an atheist or a Satanist.
Interestingly, they have never claimed that I’m not an American, although there is no evidence that can be independently verified that I was born in America.
In conclusion to this part, philology is our friend.
I have freely discussed historical Christianity with certain individuals who do not have opinions, lest I run in vain.
At times, I have discussed historical Christianity reluctantly, with those individuals who have not only opinions, but convictions, on what Christianity is and what it is not.
Because I don’t understand the modern importance of getting saved, I have never sought anyone’s salvation. Frankly speaking; I don’t care.
For those of us with more than a passing knowledge of verifiable history, we rightly question both the validity of “getting saved” and the its resultant worldview: the tribalism of us versus them.
In conclusion, attempting to use the Bible as evidence results in more skepticism than without it.
As always the gentle listener will reach his own informed conclusions regarding both historical Christianity and modern Christianity.
Apprentice Rj Asks
Welcome gentle viewer.
Recently, Apprentice RJ asked if Yours Truly had read the entire Bible, and I was happy to answer quickly, I said, “no”. That, of course, is the short answer.
I have repeatedly studied the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the 3rd chapter of genesis, and the Pauline epistles.
I am satisfied that the outline and many details of the book of Revelation are based on the European designations of the constellations, and I have concluded that the garden of eden demonstrates cause and effect.
As for the Pauline epistles as a whole, I remain uncertain what Saint Paul is attempting to communicate and remain skeptical of those who claim to understand the Pauline epistles. However, I presume that my failure is based on my inadequate understanding, and not his teachings.
Of course, this presumption is not certain.
Although I am familiar, to various degrees, with the gospels, the prophets, the psalms and the 613 laws, they are not interesting, and I have not attempted in depth research on these subjects.
I don’t make a pretense that I have mastered either the latin or the greek languages,
I have only researched certain words.
In conclusion to this part, we can say that, to our chagrin, the brothers at ISU’s fraternities know the Greek alphabet better than Yours Truly.
When the gentle reader encounters “the constitution” on my website, he may be assume that I refer to the constitution of the United States, unless the context suggests otherwise,
Even without this assumption, the context will lead the reader to the reasonable conclusion that the topic is the US constitution.
Therefore, a modifier should be used to clarify which constitution is the topic of discussion: such as United States or Indiana.
The interested researcher can examine the original US constitution and the Declaration of Indepence and their facsimiles.
There are many signatures on the Declaration, and hundreds of sources that reference the signers, not only in the United States, but in England and France,
The Founding Fathers paid taxes, bought and sold land, married, and engaged in commerce, In short, there is no viable reason to suggest that these gentlemen did not exist.
Similar to the word “constitution”, the word Bible needs a modifier, if not several, to clarify which Bible version one is referencing and to exclude other versions of the Bible.
To write the King James Bible invites uncertainty: we cannot know which version is intended: the 1611 with the apocrypha or the 1769 version without the apocrypha, or more recent versions.
This uncertainty exists when we discuss the latin and greek texts.
There are thousands of individual books of the bible, all with omissions and additions.
For example, Erasmus added the episode of the adulterous woman to the fourth gospel in subsequent versions of his NT and this fact indicates, as late as the 16th century, there was no standard text, lest he would be accused of changing sacred writ.
Erasmus and Luther were free to add to the text, and, in Luther’s case, to move books to the end of his Bible.
This ordering remains in Lutheran Bibles to this day.
Evidence for the recent creation of the Bible is the fact that the addition of chapters and verses that occured between 1551 and 1571.
Historians expect the reader to believe that generations of scholars discussed Biblical passages and searched entire books without the benefit of quickly finding the chapter and verse.
Although this scenario is possible, we believe it is highly unlikely, since the creation of chapters and verses occured within 40 years of the printing of Erasmus NT, in 1516, and Luther’s NT, in 1522.
Unlike the two founding documents of our republic, we cannot know when the individual books of the modern bible were written.
Any attempt to date the gospels based on internal dating is impossible, as the modern understanding of the reign of Augustus Caesar or the governorship of Pontius Pilate references Scaliger’s chronology, which did not exist before the 17th century.
Although references to Augustus and Pilate seem authoritative, in reality, it conveys nothing to the reader.
Therefore, the gentle viewer can agree with Scaliger’s opinion of history, or place Augustus Caesar’s reign during any epoch before the 16th century.
Tradition designates the fourth gospel as “The Gospel according to Saint John.”
However, the book does not indicate the author, so we cannot know who wrote it and, by extension, when it was written.
Based on a lack of a nativity account, no indication of Jesus’ hometown, no list of the apostles, no knowledge of Jesus’ mother’s name, no prophecies indicating a second coming, no ascension, and no Lord’s prayer, we suggest that this gospel was not one of the last gospels written, as modern scholar’s claim, but is one of the first written.
We state that we dislike like the Bible, if only because the term, like the interpretations of the text, invites misunderstanding and confusion.
The Bible is the tower of Babel of books, not constructed with stones, but created with ink and paper.
Uncertainty arises from not having one complete text, either in Latin or in Greek, that is truly ancient.
The Vatican codex was found in 1475, but lacks 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation,
The Ephraem Codex is known from 1533, but a third of the NT cannot be read.
The Alexanderia Codex is known from 1621 and includes 1 and 2 Clement, but is missing 31 leaves from gospel of Matthew, the gospel of John and 2 Corinthians.
The Sinai Codex is known from 1844, but lacks many passages of the NT text.
None of the four manuscripts regarded by scholars to be the oldest and best preserved are complete Bibles.
Therefore, there was not a complete Bible, with Old and New Testaments, until 1534, when the Lutheran Bible was published.
To arrive at a complete Bible, editors must pick and choose from various passages to create a Bible; this been done since Erasmus’ NT, and is known by any Biblical researcher, but is generally unknown to laymen.
To adequately answer Apprentice RJ’s inquiry, we should have asked which version of the Bible, but not wanting to waste time answering no to thousands of versions, we answered no, since we have never read any version of the English Bible in its entirety.
Although Apprentice Denver holds to the strange opinion that I seek to waste my time in various pointless pursuits, the truth is Capricorn’s are, by Nature, time sensitive and, as such, if I devote any effort, even with Apprentice Denver, it is not done whimsically, or in vain, but with at least one definite purpose, if not several.
We quote Humpty Dumpty:
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
As we have discovered, the word “Bible” frequently means what the speaker chooses it to mean, neither more nor less.
We recall that a certain occultist of the 20th century wrote that all previous religions lacked humor.
However, the gentle viewer knows that irony is a type of humor.
In conclusion, we quote from proverbs chapter 26 verses 4 and 5:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
As always, price and participation vary.
If the gentle viewer enjoyed our chat, then please subscribe to our youtube channel.
Recently, Apprentice RJ asked if Yours Truly had read the entire Bible, and I was happy to answer quickly, I said, “no”. That, of course, is the short answer.
I have repeatedly studied the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the 3rd chapter of genesis, and the Pauline epistles.
I am satisfied that the outline and many details of the book of Revelation are based on the European designations of the constellations, and I have concluded that the garden of eden demonstrates cause and effect.
As for the Pauline epistles as a whole, I remain uncertain what Saint Paul is attempting to communicate and remain skeptical of those who claim to understand the Pauline epistles. However, I presume that my failure is based on my inadequate understanding, and not his teachings.
Of course, this presumption is not certain.
Although I am familiar, to various degrees, with the gospels, the prophets, the psalms and the 613 laws, they are not interesting, and I have not attempted in depth research on these subjects.
I don’t make a pretense that I have mastered either the latin or the greek languages,
I have only researched certain words.
In conclusion to this part, we can say that, to our chagrin, the brothers at ISU’s fraternities know the Greek alphabet better than Yours Truly.
When the gentle reader encounters “the constitution” on my website, he may be assume that I refer to the constitution of the United States, unless the context suggests otherwise,
Even without this assumption, the context will lead the reader to the reasonable conclusion that the topic is the US constitution.
Therefore, a modifier should be used to clarify which constitution is the topic of discussion: such as United States or Indiana.
The interested researcher can examine the original US constitution and the Declaration of Indepence and their facsimiles.
There are many signatures on the Declaration, and hundreds of sources that reference the signers, not only in the United States, but in England and France,
The Founding Fathers paid taxes, bought and sold land, married, and engaged in commerce, In short, there is no viable reason to suggest that these gentlemen did not exist.
Similar to the word “constitution”, the word Bible needs a modifier, if not several, to clarify which Bible version one is referencing and to exclude other versions of the Bible.
To write the King James Bible invites uncertainty: we cannot know which version is intended: the 1611 with the apocrypha or the 1769 version without the apocrypha, or more recent versions.
This uncertainty exists when we discuss the latin and greek texts.
There are thousands of individual books of the bible, all with omissions and additions.
For example, Erasmus added the episode of the adulterous woman to the fourth gospel in subsequent versions of his NT and this fact indicates, as late as the 16th century, there was no standard text, lest he would be accused of changing sacred writ.
Erasmus and Luther were free to add to the text, and, in Luther’s case, to move books to the end of his Bible.
This ordering remains in Lutheran Bibles to this day.
Evidence for the recent creation of the Bible is the fact that the addition of chapters and verses that occured between 1551 and 1571.
Historians expect the reader to believe that generations of scholars discussed Biblical passages and searched entire books without the benefit of quickly finding the chapter and verse.
Although this scenario is possible, we believe it is highly unlikely, since the creation of chapters and verses occured within 40 years of the printing of Erasmus NT, in 1516, and Luther’s NT, in 1522.
Unlike the two founding documents of our republic, we cannot know when the individual books of the modern bible were written.
Any attempt to date the gospels based on internal dating is impossible, as the modern understanding of the reign of Augustus Caesar or the governorship of Pontius Pilate references Scaliger’s chronology, which did not exist before the 17th century.
Although references to Augustus and Pilate seem authoritative, in reality, it conveys nothing to the reader.
Therefore, the gentle viewer can agree with Scaliger’s opinion of history, or place Augustus Caesar’s reign during any epoch before the 16th century.
Tradition designates the fourth gospel as “The Gospel according to Saint John.”
However, the book does not indicate the author, so we cannot know who wrote it and, by extension, when it was written.
Based on a lack of a nativity account, no indication of Jesus’ hometown, no list of the apostles, no knowledge of Jesus’ mother’s name, no prophecies indicating a second coming, no ascension, and no Lord’s prayer, we suggest that this gospel was not one of the last gospels written, as modern scholar’s claim, but is one of the first written.
We state that we dislike like the Bible, if only because the term, like the interpretations of the text, invites misunderstanding and confusion.
The Bible is the tower of Babel of books, not constructed with stones, but created with ink and paper.
Uncertainty arises from not having one complete text, either in Latin or in Greek, that is truly ancient.
The Vatican codex was found in 1475, but lacks 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation,
The Ephraem Codex is known from 1533, but a third of the NT cannot be read.
The Alexanderia Codex is known from 1621 and includes 1 and 2 Clement, but is missing 31 leaves from gospel of Matthew, the gospel of John and 2 Corinthians.
The Sinai Codex is known from 1844, but lacks many passages of the NT text.
None of the four manuscripts regarded by scholars to be the oldest and best preserved are complete Bibles.
Therefore, there was not a complete Bible, with Old and New Testaments, until 1534, when the Lutheran Bible was published.
To arrive at a complete Bible, editors must pick and choose from various passages to create a Bible; this been done since Erasmus’ NT, and is known by any Biblical researcher, but is generally unknown to laymen.
To adequately answer Apprentice RJ’s inquiry, we should have asked which version of the Bible, but not wanting to waste time answering no to thousands of versions, we answered no, since we have never read any version of the English Bible in its entirety.
Although Apprentice Denver holds to the strange opinion that I seek to waste my time in various pointless pursuits, the truth is Capricorn’s are, by Nature, time sensitive and, as such, if I devote any effort, even with Apprentice Denver, it is not done whimsically, or in vain, but with at least one definite purpose, if not several.
We quote Humpty Dumpty:
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
As we have discovered, the word “Bible” frequently means what the speaker chooses it to mean, neither more nor less.
We recall that a certain occultist of the 20th century wrote that all previous religions lacked humor.
However, the gentle viewer knows that irony is a type of humor.
In conclusion, we quote from proverbs chapter 26 verses 4 and 5:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
As always, price and participation vary.
If the gentle viewer enjoyed our chat, then please subscribe to our youtube channel.