THE BIBLE ISN'T REAL, GOY

only the masoretic text, wich are the base for the king james bible
the septuaginta and the dead sea scrolls are older and are considerably different
the septuagint mentions what is likely Elysium and other stuff

Attached: 1574984492297.png (917x198, 63.82K)

Why did god create the prostate orgasm?

Paving the way for Luciferianism early, I see

Bro, that is a quality physique right there. Face, yeah, not so much but definitely passable.

Change words here and there you change the meaning.
Satan’s goal is to take you away from God.

Dead Sea scrolls are garbage. They were put out by (((them))) to contradict the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic texts.

Quit spreading fake news.

16 are forgeries. The ones in USA. The rest in Israel are all real

and her choice of beige for the color of her shoes (instead of pure white) is a total turnoff.

jesus fucking christ do none of you open links and read articles? literally this one museum had BS copies of dead sea scrolls, its not saying all of the dead sea scrolls are fake. stupid fuckers.

This was obvious. The real Dead Sea Scrolls are in the possession of SEELE

Attached: SEELE_Logo.png (636x638, 91.65K)

All biblical scriptures contain philosophical knowledge of consciousness, the mind, and the human potential.

They are books which contain specific information which do lead towards enlightenment and self realization.

>all the obvious Anderson shills ITT
None of you actually go to an independent baptist church, watching a pulpit-kicker's videos on the internet is not church.

ow let us examine the word forgery.
>noun
noun: forgery

the action of forging a copy or imitation of a document, signature, banknote, or work of art.

OH, SO IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT SHMUCKS TRY TO CONVINCE US WHAT IT MEANS HUH

Attached: 1571220204353.jpg (941x1024, 111.85K)

I dont think dead sea scrolls are "the bible"

Misleading bullshit. 16 from 2002 were found to be forgeries. The rest are not.

Too bad. Enochian scriptures are real

Where does it say that the Bible is fake? Some scientists just discovered that some dead Sea scroll fragments discovered after 2002 were fake

>*obvious evidence that the Qumran sect was schizophrenic kikes based on their Talmud-style arguments ovet minutiae*
>*obvious evidence that they tampered with the texts, as seen in 1QIsaiah. 2 scrolls found in the same cave. 1 being identical to the Masoretic, and the other having Qumran slang*
Keep pretending, satan.

Attached: 20190525_092119.jpg (720x693, 247.51K)

This is for you Daddy
youtube.com/watch?v=WM7-PYtXtJM

As a mercy for the faggots before they get ass cancer and aids.

>church
Scofield Bible. Perverting Gods word.
>archive.is/053dP
>Since it was first published in 1909, the Scofield Reference Bible has made uncompromising Zionists out of tens of millions of Americans. When John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said that “50 million evangelical bible-believing Christians unite with five million American Jews standing together on behalf of Israel,” it was the Scofield Bible that he was talking about.

Reading for lurkers on old history
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/247102365/p#247113309

gonna cry?

in the olden days, in order to fully subdue an enemy peoples, you had to subdue their leader fully and completely so enemy people knew if their leader accepts this they must also.

The best and most high iq way to do this was not by slaughtering families and angering entire generations, it was by ass raping the enemy king repeatedly until he started he physically and ,metaphorically opening his gates for it.

Based.

Marching to Zion
youtu.be/typ2pl2L47k

Attached: 20200314_035851.jpg (710x1459, 486.26K)

You're not supposed to learn about the Kittem and that they were Pharisaical jews

That is correct, they are not, but they are the corroborating pieces of evidence that gives the accounts of the bible a higher level of historical proof that they occurred even more likely than it is that Julius Caesar existed. From a historical validity standpoint - they are a massively huge deal.

Philosophically/spiritually nothing changes, but the historical evidence was one of the if not the strongest arguments for biblical Christianity being true compared to other religions.

there is zero mention of christianity in the scrolls, the first person to mention the existence of jesus was josephus around 80 CE

cringe and never read the bible.
kike=non-Christian by the way

Who cares if the DSS are fake, or not, when Jesus wasn't even a real person

>pic related

Attached: jesus.jpg (333x500, 25.84K)

>the first person
You mean non Christian

>newfags don't know the dead sea scrolls were discovered by zionists in israel and used as archaeological evidence justifying their claim to the land

lmao

>posting a repeatedly debunked book.
Absolute state of (you) mate.
Christ is one of the individuals that we have the most written and archeological evidence for.
A significant number of historical figures that we count as real would have to be thrown out if we declared Christ as non-existent.
In fact, It would most likely destroy our understanding of history.

Begome orthodox

The Dead Sea Scrolls contradicts the Masoretic texts the jews (((translated))) in the middle ages that removed prophecies about Jesus.

>Christ is one of the individuals that we have the most written and archeological evidence for.
Lol WTF are you talking about. The first written evidence for Jesus dates from ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FUCKING YEARS after His death. And there is not a single piece of achaeological evidence, you fucking liar.

>A significant number of historical figures that we count as real would have to be thrown out if we declared Christ as non-existent.
Fucking bullshit.

Because it is a LARP. Gospel of John was declared fake too.
I don't know why the jews and rednecks got triggered, the scrolls weren't cannon.

Oh of course.
Tacitus and Josephus didn't discuss him less than 20 years after the fact.
The Gospels weren't written less than 50 years after his death.
It's all made up.
>Fucking bullshit
It's not.
A good number of historical figures have not left anything in the way of archeological evidence and we only know of them via sources, typically writing decades after their death.
For example King Demaratus.
We only know of him via Herodotus, who wrote 40 years after his death. All other historians writing about him used Herodotus.
We take him at face value and declare this King to have existed and carried out the role he is supposed to.
Christ was written about by at least 6 different people within 50 years.

>he still believes in fairy tales

OHNONONONO

>Gospel of John was declared fake too.
Proof?

>Tacitus and Josephus didn't discuss him less than 20 years after the fact.
Tacitus wrote about someone with a similar-sounding name.

No Josephus manuscript before the 4th century contains any mention of Jesus. We have six independent manuscripts thar prove this.

Of course, you would already know all of this if you had ever read a single book on early Christianity.

>and we only know of them via sources, typically writing decades after their death.
Usually those "sources written decades after their death" were written by historians who still had access to contemporary documents, and were largely quoting from them. So what we have are, for all intents and purposes, as good as something that was written the same day it happened.

>Christ was written about by at least 6 different people within 50 years.
No, Christ was written about by exactly one person, and that manuscript was then copied by several other people.

Why do I continually need to explain these basic facts to you retards?

>>Gospel of John was declared fake too.
>Proof?
We don't have a copy of the Gospel of John, so arguing over whether it is fake or not is about as much use cutting your fingers off

Someday you will be on fire screaming and thinking about all your Yas Forums posts.

>Someday you will be on fire screaming and thinking about all your Yas Forums posts.
Yeah, I'm sure (((God))) takes a really dim view of historians trying to assess fragmentary ancient documents.

I'm a Christian and the dead sea scrolls are not pertinent to scripture. They were written by a very strange cult that deviated from the original texts.

I thought the dead sea scrolls were found by some goat herder and the jews stole it during the six day war from a Jordan museum

Attached: 1565301571127.jpg (400x400, 27.64K)

okay virgin

Dead Sea Scrolls are Gnostic forgeries aka the FreeMasons made it all up

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE YOU RETARD

>refuses to follow jesus
>gets ass blasted about people saying the scroll are forgeries

Attached: i will falsely be called a jew for pointing to this scripture.jpg (264x56, 8.98K)

My bible would beg to differ.
>Tacitus wrote about someone with a similar-sounding name.
He is quite directly writing about Christians who follow Christ.
>No works from Josephus
So Book 20, Chapter 9 doesn't exist?
Pray tell.
>historians who still had access to contemporary documents
And who's to say that Christians didn't have the same?
The Historicity of the Bible is quite accurate when it comes to the goings on of the world.
Furthermore, Herodotus didn't in this case. His account is drawn only from the supposed oral testament of Demeratus' grand children.
And how can you prove these historians working off contemporary works actually did?
In most cases they do not quote them directly, nor provide a reference.
>No, Christ was written about by exactly one person
Really? Tacitus, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all the same person.
I'm shocked.

>The real Dead Sea Scrolls are in the possession of SEELE
This.

Attached: (((Keel Lorenz))).jpg (260x196, 15.38K)

Attached: 47545747447.jpg (682x800, 102.52K)

>why are jews acting like jews?
gee wiz, i do wonder why, frien.

jews are the ones who found the scrolls in the first place

>My bible would beg to differ.
Bitch, the Gospel of John now is a mangled mess of fragments from an earlier edition. That's why the Last Supper occurs at the beginning of the text, rather than at the end.
>Tacitus is quite directly writing about Christians who follow Christ.
Possibly, but Christ is a title, not a name. We have no idea which of the messianic figures Tacitus might have been describing. Even if it's "our" Jesus, Tacitus is just repeating what Christians told him, and they are just repeating what they found in the gospels, so it doesn't count as independent evidence for Jesus anyway.

>So Book 20, Chapter 9 doesn't exist?
We have six commentaries on Josephus dating from before the 4th century. Not a single one of them mentions 20:9. Therefore 20:9 is a later forgery.
>And who's to say that Christians didn't have the same?
If they did, those records didn't survive long enough for the gospel writers to read them, unfortunately
>The Historicity of the Bible is quite accurate when it comes to the goings on of the world.
Piss off you cunt, hardly a single historical event described in the bible is supported by any independent text.
>And how can you prove these historians working off contemporary works actually did?
Because (1) they name their sources and (2) their readers had access to their same sources, so checking would be simple
>Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all the same person.
Matthew, Luke and John were all copying from Mark. As you certainly already know.

Imagine believing their lies, devoting your life to them, and being reinforced into those lies when they feign fear of them.
How do you STILL not understand their game and how naive you are?

just for you, fag

Dead-sea scrolls contain the Old Testament, retard. Jews have just as much interest in their authenticity and Christians do

Attached: 1559068959402.jpg (293x326, 9.69K)

no, we dont, fuxking effort post, and include the information IN YOUR POST