Ark-eology

 
     This lesson will focus upon the Account of Noah, the story of the ark and several secondary aspects surrounding the global flood and following.



For a focus on the case for the flood itself go to..
 http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/07/evidence-of-world-wide-global-flood.html
 http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2013/02/rock-of-ages.html
Also this paper presupposes an ice canopy.

http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/11/lets-put-canopy-back-up-defense-of.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-facebook-debating-canopy-theory.html
 http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-fall-of-lucifer-nyc-pt6.html 



The fountains of the great deep
genesis 7:¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 

  The majority of water which was supplied for the 40 days and nights of rain came from the fountains of the great deep.  Subterranean waters had contained half the earth's water miles below the earth's surface. Here is a good video presentation.
https://youtu.be/MXH1mWafhjY
How long did they have?
Genesis 6: ³ And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"
Now many argue that this was a limitation upon man's lifespan.  Admittedly it is easy to assume this to be the case.  But after researching this to be the case it appears that this is more likely the timescale till judgement and a period for Noah to build the ark.

Genesis 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ² that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ³ And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ⁴ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  Obviously this vs is connected with the nephilum incident.  So being connected to an event at a certain time the 120years seems to be the continuation after the event. Also most bible characters of this time outlived the 120 yr life span especially Noah.  Even Moses outlived it centuries later.  And every now and again an individual will be recorded out living 120 though extremely rare these days.

An ark of gopher wood

1. :  a burrowing land tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) of the southern United States; broadly :  any of several related land tortoises —called also gopher tortoise
2. 2 a :  any of a family (Geomyidae) of burrowing rodents of western North America, Central America, and the southern United States that are the size of a large rat and have large cheek pouches opening beside the mouth —called also pocket gopher b :  any of several small ground squirrels (genus Spermophilus) of the prairie region of North America

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gopher
    So from here we see that gopher means to dig out.  Noah likely dug out the center of the wood.
   Also the LXX translates this wood as squared would.  The ancient Jewish Philosopher Philo gives some interesting commentary on this wood.
"(2) Why does he make the ark of squared pieces of wood?(genesis 6:16).
  He does this in the first place, because of the figure of a square, wherever it may be placed, is steady and firm, consisting as it does of right angles, and it is confirmed in a purer and clearer manner by the nature of the human body."
"In the third place a quadrangular piece of wood shows in it's extension nearly every sort imaginable of uneven distinction, inasmuch as its length is greater than its breadth,  and its breadth greater than it's depth." The works of Philo trans. C.D.Yonge pg. 814 "Questions and answers on Genesis II"

 .Genesis 6: ¹⁴ Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."
 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pitch
pitch2

1. any of various dark, tenacious, and viscous substances for caulking and paving, consisting of the residue of the distillation of coal tar or wood tar."

 

  Many Skeptics have argued that the size of the ark is beyond that of a regular wooden frame that has no metal or advanced technology to keep it together. However, the wood that we use today is not necessarily the wood that was used for the ark.  The timbers used were made from trees which may have been prepared at creation and probably grew to massive levels.
  We have found evidence of massive trees in the ancient past.
http://naturalhistory.si.edu/highlight/fossil_scale_tree/
 http://naturalhistory.si.edu/highlight/fossil_scale_tree/images/treeandtruck_opt_no_text.jpg




"In June, 2005, the National Museum of Natural History received one of the largest plant fossils ever collected - 3.9 m (13 ft) long and 3.7 m (12 ft) high, and weighing more than 16 tons." 
 This is only a slice of a trunk it is hard to imagine the Height of this species of tree.




“One tree trunk measured 896 feet in length and the upright trunks are so large that they appear from a distance to be great symmetrical columns of natural rock. These federal geologists tell the -story. They have visited this distant valley, which is split by a deep arroyo leading into the Rio Grande.” "According to an article in the Sunday, January 23, 1927 Port Arthur News,"http://greaterancestors.com/ancient-trees-more-than-twice-the-height-of-the-tallest-giant-redwoods/
 
" Fossil trees that approached the heights of today’s tallest redwoods have been found in northern Thailand. The longest petrified log measures 72.2 meters (237 feet), which suggest the original tree towered to more than 100 meters (330 feet) in a wet tropical forest some 800,000 years ago."
 http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/giant-trees-found-in-thailand-130320.htm
   It is quite rational to think that Noah could have access to these giant trees and thus have wood already stable.


Stability of the ark
I would encourage the reader to click the link as this demonstrate the mathematical statistics exhaustively fine tuned.

http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway
"In the ship classification rules, a ship should satisfy two kinds of stability criteria: GM for small heel angle, and dynamic stability. We applied the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)’s rule to all 13 hull forms. The results showed that all hull forms except hull #1 sufficiently satisfied all the requirements. It should be especially noted that the Ark was 13 times more stable than the standard for safety required by the ABS rule."

 

Feeding issues
"Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark. See Teeth and Tucker for several modern cases of ‘herbivorous carnivores’. Dogs are considered carnivores, but dogs in some countries actually survive on a primarily vegetarian diet. During many years of working in Thailand, I observed that most pet dogs were fed on table scraps, which meant cooked rice was their staple food, as this was the staple food of their owners. And in Indonesia many dogs are fed mainly on vegetables—see note 5 here. Consider another carnivore, the snake. There is a widespread misconception that snakes can only eat live food, but there are commercial breeders today whose snakes thrive on dry food pellets. So there is no problem with Noah possibly doing the same for carnivores on the Ark—a mixture of grains and legumes would provide all the nutrition needed, including the building blocks for animal protein."
http://creation.com/feeding-carnivores-on-the-ark-and-refuting-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism

"The total number of land-dwelling mammals birds, reptiles, and amphibian species is less than 20,000 or so. The number of "kinds," the Biblical designation, is probably much smaller. For instance, of the 9,000 bird species, approximately 400 are hummingbirds, with only minor differences in color, size, and habitat. Very likely, they all come from only one or a few kinds, thereby dropping the total number."
http://www.icr.org/article/how-could-all-animals-get-board-noahs-ark/

"Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood." 
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/caring-for-the-animals-on-the-ark/

 Flood accounts and the Bible's story
" Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.
Flood myths are so universal that the Hungarian psychoanalyst Geza Roheim thought their origins were physiological, not historical"http://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
  The secular world easily spins the evidence so fast that they never consider the most obvious of facts.   If all the world civilizations speak of the flood and most speak of a noah and a vessel.  Then perhaps it is because there was a worldwide flood and there was Noah and the Ark.

Noah was historical
Genesis 5: ²⁸ And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: ²⁹ and he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. ³⁰ And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: ³¹ and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. ³² And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

1 Chronicles 1: 1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, ² Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, ³ Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, ⁴ Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

luke 3: ³⁶ which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech"
As we can see from these Geneologies Noah is not simply meant as a fictitious character.  He is meant as a historical person within a larger family tree. 

Problems with a local flood and Noah's Ark

     The local flood scenario leaves more irrationality to the story than rationaility.
1. Why build an ark?
 The local flood interpretations get quite bizarre, notice the reasoning here why build an unneeded Ark that was only designed to float, when it could not. 

2. How could a local flood destroy mankind?
Many cultures claim to have an ancient origin.  Typical Christians who adhere to and "Old Earth" model admit to any assertion past the 6,000 year model.  Many cultures have claims of ancient histories, even though they are genealogically unsubstantiated.  Therefore it is consistent to say in a local flood there were aborigines who were not affected and yet ths somehow was judgement upon them even though there must have been no , consequences.


3.  How could Noah's ark float? "In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains."http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
     Now how can the 65ft tall 450ft long Ark Float on 20ft waters???

4. Why would Noah need all those animals?
If there is no concern over the survival of the world, why bring carnivores? Since when is it necessary for man to provide an ecosystem?

5.  Why would Noah need to take birds?
If the earth were only 20-30ft there are trees and mountains of much greater height.

6.    How did the middle east stay flooded 150 days?

7.   How did it rain for 40days and 40 nights?

8. Why did the dove come back the 1st time?

9.  How did a local flood take Noah to Ararat?

 You really have to assume that the story is completely fabricated.



The mighty wind

genesis  8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; "
After the fountains of the great deep were opened  huge amounts of heat and friction left the earth.  These geysers would exit the earths atmosphere easily with a natural 20 mile burst propelling out of the 2mile ozone and shattering through the crystalline canopy.  Yet as one of newton's laws of motion states for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. as the heat exited the earth the the cold ionosphere gases would plummet upon the water soaked earth.  the supplying a cooling mechanism which would balance out the destruction of the earth.









The rainbow

"When sunlight encounters a raindrop, part is reflected but part enters, being refracted at the surface of the raindrop. When this light hits the back of the drop, some of it is reflected off the back. When the internally reflected light reaches the surface again, once more some is internally reflected and some is refracted as it exits the drop. (The light that reflects off the drop, exits from the back, or continues to bounce around inside the drop after the second encounter with the surface, is not relevant to the formation of the primary rainbow.) The overall effect is that part of the incoming light is reflected back over the range of 0° to 42°, with the most intense light at 42°.^[18] This angle is independent of the size of the drop, but does depend on its refractive index. Seawater has a higher refractive index than rain water, so the radius of a "rainbow" in sea spray is smaller than a true rainbow. This is visible to the naked eye by a misalignment of these bows.^[19]
 
The reason the returning light is most intense at about 42° is that this is a turning point – light hitting the outermost ring of the drop gets returned at less than 42°, as does the light hitting the drop nearer to its centre. There is a circular band of light that all gets returned right around 42°. If the sun were a laser emitting parallel, monochromatic rays, then the luminance (brightness) of the bow would tend toward infinity at this angle (ignoring interference effects). (See Caustic (optics).) But since the sun's luminance is finite and its rays are not all parallel (it covers about half a degree of the sky) the luminance does not go to infinity. Furthermore, the amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength, and hence its colour. This effect is called dispersion. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. Due to this angle, blue is seen on the inside of the arc of the primary rainbow, and red on the outside. The result of this is not only to give different colours to different parts of the rainbow, but also to diminish the brightness. (A "rainbow" formed by droplets of a liquid with no dispersion would be white, but brighter than a normal rainbow.)
The light at the back of the raindrop does not undergo total internal reflection, and some light does emerge from the back. However, light coming out the back of the raindrop does not create a rainbow between the observer and the sun because spectra emitted from the back of the raindrop do not have a maximum of intensity, as the other visible rainbows do, and thus the colours blend together rather than forming a rainbow.^[20]
A rainbow does not exist at one particular location. Many rainbows exist; however, only one can be seen depending on the particular observer's viewpoint as droplets of light illuminated by the sun. All raindrops refract and reflect the sunlight in the same way, but only the light from some raindrops reaches the observer's eye. This light is what constitutes the rainbow for that observer. The whole system composed by the sun's rays, the observer's head, and the (spherical) water drops has an axial symmetry around the axis through the observer's head and parallel to the sun's rays. The rainbow is curved because the set of all the raindrops that have the right angle between the observer, the drop, and the sun, lie on a cone pointing at the sun with the observer at the tip. The base of the cone forms a circle at an angle of 40–42° to the line between the observer's head and their shadow but 50% or more of the circle is below the horizon, unless the observer is sufficiently far above the earth's surface to see it all, for example in an aeroplane (see above).^[21][22] Alternatively, an observer with the right vantage point may see the full circle in a fountain or waterfall spray.^{[23]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
 
  Was the rainbow of Noah just regular?
  Genesis 9: 11} And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. ¹² And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: ¹³ I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. ¹⁴ And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: ¹⁵ and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

There is divided opinion on this topic as John Gill notes.
"I do set my bow in the cloud,.... Or "I have given", or "have set it" (p); which seems as if it was at that instant set; this is the same we call the "rainbow": and so Horace (q) calls it "arcus pluvius": it is called a "bow", because of its form, being a semicircle, and a "rainbow", because it is seen in a day of rain, and is a sign of it, or of its being quickly over, Ezekiel 1:28 and this appears in a moist dewy cloud, neither very thick nor very thin, and is occasioned by the rays of the sun opposite to it, refracted on it: and this God calls "his bow", not only because made by him, for, notwithstanding the natural causes of it, the cloud and sun, the disposition of these to produce it, such a phenomenon is of God; but also because he appointed it to be a sign and token of his covenant with his creatures; so the Heathen poets (r) call the rainbow the messenger of Juno. It is a question whether there was a rainbow before the flood, and it is not easily answered; both Jews and Christians are divided about it; Saadiah thought there was one; but Aben Ezra disapproves of his opinion, and thinks it was first now made. The greater part of Christian interpreters are of the mind of Saadiah, that it was from the beginning, the natural causes of it, the sun and cloud, being before the flood; and that it was now after it only appointed to be a sign and token of the covenant; but though the natural causes of it did exist before, it does not follow, nor is it to be proved, that there was such a disposition of them to produce such an effect; and it might be so ordered in Providence, that there should not be any, that this might be entirely a new thing, and so a wonderful one, as the word for "token" (s) signifies; and the Greeks calls the rainbow the "daughter of Thaumas" or "Wonder" (t); and be the more fit to be a sign and token of the covenant, that God would no more destroy the earth with water; for otherwise, if this had been what Noah and his sons had been used to see, it can hardly be thought sufficient to take off their fears of a future inundation, which was the end and use it was to serve, as follows:
it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth; that is, between God and the creatures of the earth; or of a promise that God would no more destroy the earth, and cut off the creatures in it by a flood; for though it is a bow, yet without arrows, and is not turned downwards towards the earth, but upwards towards heaven, and so is a token of mercy and kindness, and not of wrath and anger.
(p) "dedi", Montanus; so Ainsworth; "posui", Pisator, Drusius, Buxtorf. (q) De Arte Poetica, ver. 18. (r) Nuntia Junonis varios induta colores Concipit Iris aquas--------- Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 7. (s) "signum, tam nudum, quam prodigiosum", Buxtorf. (t) Plato in Theaeeteto, Plutarch. de Placit, Philosoph. 3, 4. Apollodor. Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 5."http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/genesis/9.htm
  However, the idea of natural clouds and storms always pointing to God note inducing a flood before the flood ever hit the earth is ridiculous.  Earlier scripture points to the earth not raining before the flood.
Genesis 2: ⁵ and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. ⁶ But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
  Also the token of the rainbow is for not just humanity but all life.
genesis 9:¹³ I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth."
  Therefore with the bow being covenant with all the earth and all the earth had been covered in rain, it is natural too assume that the rainbow was a global rainbow.
This global rainbow is the natural by-product of the destruction of a crystaline canopy.  The great deep fountain jets had hit and spread across the canopy.  The -300Celsius psace would collect water frozen into ice and it would clump and fall back into the atmosphere.  these drops would produce prism of rainbows all over the globe for all the earth to see. 

The days of Peleg


Genesis 10: ²⁵ And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
  Now some have argued that Peleg was simply a time when the nations divided,  however the time of Peleg would be well after the the curse of languages at the tower of Babel.  As etymology of the name peleg reveals a division by water.  Creation science advocates have long argued that the ice age was connected to the time of the flood, in which case, the melting of the glaciers would have divided the land by raising the water levels.  

Mt. Ararat?
Genesis 8: ⁴ And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."
   It is very important for us to note that the Ark rested on the mountains and not mountain.   The post flood geography is not the same as the current geography.   We can expect that the ice age and division of the lands by water had a great dealto do with this.  Also the current Mt. Ararat is volcanic and that would imply that it was post-flood.  While it is still quite possible that the Ark still rest on Mt. Ararat.  The Bible does not declare this to be necessary.


Where did the ark go?
 We have to understand that in this day and age, the method of archaeology has no ability to prove the certainty of the existence of Noah's Ark even if Noah's Ark were standing right in front of them!
Why is this so?
A: Because we don't know what people did with it. It is quite possible that the ark was chopped up and used for housing.  especially since the post flood world would take time to regenerate.
B. Because the Ark was built 4,000 years ago it could have decayed to nothing, especially if it were torn apart.
C. Because natural disasters such as lightning or volcanoes could have burned it up.
D. Because the mountains of Ararat may have been destroyed or reshaped in the days of Peleg and/or the post flood ice age.

anchor stones?
http://www.bethlehemstarsequel.com/images/anchor%20stone.jpg

 

 
There are several anchor stones resting inland near Ararat that local people claim to be the anchor stones of Noah's ark. One stone with 8 crosses carved into it to mark the fact that the 8 survivors (Noah and his family) had used the stones for the Ark.

Josephus:“ the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia ... However, the Armenians call this place, αποβατηριον 'The Place of Descent'; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote." (I.3.5-6, trans. William Whiston)
"Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are lost to us, Berossus published the Babyloniaca (hereafter, History of Babylonia) in three books some time around 290–278 BC, by the patronage^[3] of the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (during the third year of his reign, according to Diodorus Siculus^[4]). Certain astrological fragments recorded by Pliny the Elder, Censorinus, Flavius Josephus, and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio are also attributed to Berossus, but are of unknown provenance, or indeed are uncertain as to where they might fit into his History. Vitruvius credits him with the invention of the semi-circular sundial hollowed out of a cubical block.^[5] A statue of him was erected in Athens, perhaps attesting to his fame and scholarship as historian and astronomer-astrologer."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus
   So here we have testimony from a secular historical figure that the ark is indeed on the mountain in Armenia.

One of the most reputed possible modern sightings of Noah's Ark is title the "Ararat Anomaly"

"In 1974, during a private meeting with William Colby, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), I asked if he was aware of the claimed sightings of Noah's Ark.  He said He was not.  After summarizing several "sightings." I stated that a dangerous and expensive search for an object with profound international importance, could be done safely and cheaply with technology Colby controlled.  Perhaps the CIA already had information in it's files that could help in this search.
  Weeks later, I was contacted by a man I will call H.S.  He said that Director Colby asked him to see if any information could be provided.  In our discussions, H.S. asked many questions.  About a year later called to say his work was completed and to invite me to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In His office, H.S. said he had examined all photography of the Mt. Ararat region.  He could not be sure if the object he was seeing was the Ark or a rock.  I asked H.S if, after studying the information on the various claimed sightings, he thought the ark on Ararat.  He said "Yes," I asked why, because no photographs clearly showed the Ark. H.S. responded, "There is too much smoke for there not to be fire."" pg. 45 Walt Brown  In the Beginning Compelling evidence for creation and the flood.  One may wonder why Dr. Brown had such access with the CIA, however it should be noted that Dr. Brown is also Col. Brown and a retire military professor.
"The anomaly is located on the northwest corner of the Western Plateau of Mount Ararat (approximately 39°42′10″N 44°16′30″ECoordinates: 39°42′10″N 44°16′30″E) at about 15,500 ft (4,724 m), some 2.2 km (1.4 mi) west of the 16,854 ft (5,137 m) summit, on the edge of what appears from the photographs to be a steep downward slope. It was first filmed during a U.S. Air Force aerial reconnaissance mission in 1949 — the Ararat massif sits on the former Turkish/Soviet border, and was thus an area of military interest — and was accordingly given a classification of "secret" as were subsequent photographs taken in 1956, 1973, 1976, 1990 and 1992, by aircraft and satellites.
Six frames from the 1949 footage were released under the Freedom of Information Act to Porcher Taylor, a professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, and a scholar at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies specializing in satellite intelligence and diplomacy, in 1995.  A joint research project was later established between Insight Magazine and Space Imaging (now GeoEye), using the IKONOS satellite. IKONOS captured the anomaly on August 5 and September 13, 2000. GeoEye has constructed a computerized video of the imagery it captured of the anomaly. The structure appears at approximately halfway through the video. A controversial "bird's eye view" satellite image, taken by IKONOS later in 2003 for the same research project, was released to the public in 2006.^[3]  The Mount Ararat area also has been imaged by France's SPOT satellite in September 1989, Landsat in the 1970s and NASA's Space shuttle in 1994, as well as military satellite images captured by the CIA's KH-9 (Keyhole 9) in 1973 and KH-11 (Keyhole 11) in 1976 and 1990–1992. The Defense Intelligence Agency believes the anomaly shows "linear facades in the glacial ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_anomaly
  What is intriguing about this location is the fact that it has been so heavily guarded for so long by communist groups dedicated to the eradication of religion. Could this be because of the authenticity of this find?  Could it be too late to know?

What about Ron Wyatt's Location?
 
  The majority of the creationist community has rejected Ron Wyatt's location for the Ark for several basic reasons.
1. Similar dimples in the geography of the region are found all over.
2.The rock around the edges is not wood.
3. The location is not on a mountain
4. the borders are too long
     Sure it may be possible for the ark to have landed there.  But only in the sense that you never know history without a witness.




Could the mountains really have had been covered in water?
 This picture of Mt. Everest was posted in an explicitly uniformitarian evolutionary publication.  http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm

"Crinoid fossils and other marine fossils have been found on top of almost every mountain range on earth. In fact, crinoid fossils have even been found at the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth. This 1967 article from Geological Magazine entitled "The Highest Fossils in the World" explains that some of the first successful expeditions (by the Swiss in 1956 and Americans in 1963; the first confirmed successful attempt to reach the summit was of course that of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953) to the summit of Everest brought back geological samples which contained fossilized crinoids."http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2012/03/crinoids-on-mount-everest.html
   So even at the highest altitudes we find evidence of sea life. So the great flood is quite plausible.


What is hiding in the mountain? 
"At the end of the flood, Noah left the Ark and descended from Mt Ararat to an area now called Nakhichevan.

In this area today the land remains abundant in alkaline soil due to the salty flood waters that once covered the earth. The area is a sacred ground, because the father of mankind settled and later died there.

To commemorate the Great Flood, each year on the same day Noah would order his sons, who were also residents of Nakhichevan, to splash water on each other. On the same day, in memory of the dove that had brought Noah an olive leaf (to signify that land was clear of water); they released doves into the sky at the same time they splashed each other.

It is indicated in the Old Armenian Calendar that this was done in the month of Navasard (August). In this month the residents of Nakhichevan also showed respect and celebrated the goddess of love, beauty and water—‘Astghik’, who beautified herself with roses.
Therefore on that special day in August, the residents unified the three rituals—they would splash each other with water; release doves and also throw rose petals at each other, in respect to Astghik.

This special day of celebration is what Armenians call Vardavar (Rose Festival), which still happens to this day in Armenia. Many visitors to Armenia are taken by surprise when on a particular day in August the locals happily splash buckets of water at each other, usually in the most unexpected places. They follow this by releasing doves and spreading rose petals. Along with this fun festival there comes a peaceful time when mutual grievances are forgotten.

It is said that the people who end the day having been splashed with water, are cleansed of dirt and corruption. That, along with doves flying and rose petals strewn, the people’s faces are transformed."https://araratour.com/vardavar-festival/

 "Although now a Christian tradition, Vardavar's history dates back to pagan times. The ancient festival is traditionally associated with the goddess Astghik, who was the goddess of water, beauty, love and fertility. The festivities associated with this religious observance of Astghik were named “Vartavar” because Armenians offered her roses as a celebration (vart means "rose" in Armenian and var mean "rise"), this is why it was celebrated in the harvest time."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardavar

    An interesting point to be made is how easily the pagan and christian meaning to the rituals integrated.  point to the possibility that the ritual may indeed have pointed back to an actual event.

" Vahagn, the god of fire, was a perfect being, except for his explosive temper. Even his birth was brought about a cosmic shake of the universe. The gods rejoiced the day he was born—they gave him many gifts. Astghik, the goddess of love, beauty and water, kissed Vahagn’s forehead and tied the Cross of War, woven from stars to his hand, that way the power of the fire god would last forever. Mihr, god of light, harmony and advice, gave Vahagn a heavy mace, made from a thousand and one suns. The new god especially liked that gift—he loved flying across the sky like a fiery whirlwind, brandishing his mace.

One day Vahagn propelled his mace and then, as usual, he went to look for it. He searched planet after planet for his mace and eventually found it on Earth, stuck above a valley. As he got closer to the mace he saw how the sun was gleaming on the spikes, which were surrounded lush greenery—he was transfixed the beauty of what was before him.

“It’s so beautiful here! This is the right mountain and valley!” said Astghik, approaching from behind.

“We were wondering how to find a good place for the earthly god to be born!” said Tir, the god of literature, science and art.

The gods had been traveling across the world to find a place where the cradle of the first earthly god could rest. They decided that this would be his place of birth and that his name would be Hayk. Vahagn was assigned the task of keeping light and warmth over the cradle and he did so with the sun. They called the place Ararat, and it was so beautiful that even the gods went down and walked among the beautiful landscape."https://araratour.com/the-legend-of-mount-ararat-birth/
  Could the ark be likened to an alien space craft? Certainly not in our modern minds.  But what would ancient people think of a giant vessel on top of a mountain? Notice how they gave messianic qualities to the god of the mountain. Could the Ark be the cradle? Yet also we see that this myth is after the volcanic eruption.  So the Armenian people may be in the dark as to the area before the flood.
https://youtu.be/yfqPdG7n8pA

In Williamstown KY "The ARK Encounter"  will be the first model correctly to scale of Noah's Ark.

https://arkencounter.com/


Hebrews 11: ⁷ By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
1Peter 3:¹⁸ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: ¹⁹ by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; ²⁰ which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. ²¹ The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 
 

In conclusion, the account of Noah's Ark is a historical narrative. it provides us scientific details to a scientifically feasible scenario.  Ancient history has dozens of witnesses to this story as a real event. It even has the possibility of having survived the passage of time.
So what is standing in the way of believing this story to be factual?
  Many would say faith, but this is not quite accurate. There is something far more intense than faith. If Noah's story is true then there has to be a God.  How else could Noah known of the flood?  Who could else could have caused this calamity?
If' Noah's Story is true then God has to be sovereign to Judge mankind. No longer is God to be a senile Old man hovering in the heavens with no care of what goes on here on the earth.
If Noah's story is true then God has to have wrath stored up to reap vengeance upon mankind.   Therefore we should fear God and seek to follow His word.
At this point So many unbeliever's have turned away.  Hoping that denial would turn away the horrors of Judgement.  Yet they have ignored the final implication.
If Noah's account is true then God saved mankind.  Noah is our ancestor and God loves us.
There is only one way of escape today as there was then.
There was a door at the rib of the ship it was the only way in.
genesis 6:¹⁶ A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."
genesis 7: ¹⁶ And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in."
  From the rib of adam we have Eve whom is the mother of all living.  From the rib of the Ark we found the survival of the human race.  From the rib of christ we find the blood which is the salvation of the human race.
john 19: ³⁴ but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
The escape was through this door.  Now salvation is through this door.
John 10: ⁹ I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
   This way demand faith.  But knowing this as truth demands Humility. Let us do so before it is too late.
Matthew 24:
³⁸ For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, ³⁹ and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

reasoning with a calvinist.

Calvinist: Ephesians 1:5 tells us that God "predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will." According to this verse, the basis of our being predestined is not something that we do or will do, but is based solely on the will of God for His own pleasure. As Romans 9:15-16 says, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Similarly, Romans 9:11 declares regarding Jacob and Esau, "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad"in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls." Then again in Ephesians 1:11 we see that people are "chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." From these and many others passages, we see that Scripture consistently teaches that predestination or election is not based upon something that we do or will do. God predestined people based on His own sovereign will to redeem for Himself people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. God predetermined or predestined this from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) based solely on His sovereign will and not because of anything that He knew the people would do. But what about Romans 8:29 where it says that those "He foreknew, He also predestined"? Doesn't that seem to say that predestination is based upon the foreknowledge of God? Of course, the answer is yes, it does teach that predestination is based on the foreknowledge of God. But what does the word foreknowledge mean? Does it mean "based upon God's knowledge of the future," meaning God simply looks down through the future and sees who will believe the gospel message and then predestines or elects them? If that were the case, it would contradict the verses above from Romans and Ephesians that make it very clear election is not based on anything man does or will do. Fortunately, God does not leave us to wonder about this issue. In John 10:26, Jesus said, "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep." The reason some people believe is that they belong to God. They were chosen for salvation, not based on the fact that they would one day believe, but because God chose them for "adoption as sons in Christ Jesus' before they ever existed. The reason one person believes and another person does not is that one person has been adopted by God and the other has not. The truth is that the word foreknew in Romans 8:29 is not speaking of God's knowing the future. The word foreknowledge is never used in terms of knowing about future events, times or actions (God's omniscience). What it does describe is a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God whereby God brings the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time. The word know is sometimes used in the Bible to describe an intimate or personal relationship between a man and a woman. In a similar sense, before God ever created the heavens and earth, and a long time before we were ever born, God knew His elect in a personal way and chose them to be His sheep, not because they would someday follow Him but in order to guarantee that they would follow Him. His knowing them and choosing them is the reason they follow Him, not the other way around. The issue really is not whether or not God knows who will believe, but why some believe and others do not. The answer to that is God chooses to have mercy on some and others He leaves in their sinful rebellion. The following quote by John Murray is excellent in dealing with this issue: "Even if it were granted that "foreknew" means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; He foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith, which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith He himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44, 45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2). Hence His eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by His decree to generate this faith in those whom He foresees as believing."

Like · Reply · 3 · 8 hrs

Matt SIngleton In Ephesians 1:5 who is "us"? not Jew, not gentile but the believer or person who 1st believed. The text reveals this to us in eph. 1: 13 in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Notice inheritance which is connected to adoption. Romans 9:15-16 beg the question "who will God have mercy on? Romans 11: 31 even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." No doubt that Romans 9:11 chooses one unconditionally over the other. But what is this election about? Paul is quoting from the prophet Malachi 1:2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, 3 and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever." Here we see that the context of election is national dealing with kingdoms. ELection is a kingdom doctrine. When we look at the context of Romans 9 we see this. Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." "God predestined people based on His own sovereign will" What is His will? 2 peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." john 1: 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. " john 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. " "Does it mean "based upon God's knowledge of the future," meaning God simply looks down through the future and sees who will believe the gospel message and then predestines or elects them?" God is the alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. God transcends space and time. He was not inside space and time plotting out a plan and waiting for it to happen. the whole picture is before him. His predestination is not over his knowledge, in other words he is not limited in what he knows by what he does. God knows every possibility. He i somniscient. So he foreknows and then he chooses as Romans 8 declares. He chooses to save those who would receive him. john 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 10: 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me." those who are not His are willfully not his. So of course they are not predestined to be. In other words this does not contradict. God does get rejected in attempts to establish a relationship. Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! " Calvinist often get obsessed over faith. Assuming that it has to be predestined so as not to be the work of salvation. But this is irrational and in exegesis it is reprehensible. Faith is not the work of salvation. It has no merit. It is the key to the transaction. But it is the righteousness of christ which is imputed to us which brings our justification. Calvin taught this clearly, it is called the imputation of Christ righteousness. If faith is passive then it is not a work. Now as I have written election is not a doctrine of salvation. So the semi-pelagian is wrong to assert that God has chosen the believer to be saved upon the merit of their faith. God has chosen to bring the blessings of justification to all. Romans 5:2 by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." ..5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. " So it is the work of Christ by Which the Father knows us and loves us. It is by faith by which we receive that love. But until we believe we are simply not saved. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

A new look at an old word The Catholic Connection

I. A. The Alexandrine School (the birthplace of Catholic theology)

  " . nevertheless from the  3rd cent. BC to the 6th  cent. AD it was the center of Gravity in the philosophic world. "Plato was numbered among the prophets. Greece here acknowledged the Divine  Unity to which the OT was pledged.   Here the Jew acknowledged that Athens as truly as Jerusalem had taught a vision of God.  This was the first attempt to form a universal religion. The Alex. philosophy was the Elijah  to prepare the way for a Savior of the world. The thought of both Sadducee and  Pharisee was affected  by it and much  late Jewish lit. is saturated with it.
 ".... Neoplatonism was the 'germ out of which Christian theology sprang"'
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "Alexandria" Camdem Cobern

   It is interesting to note that the word "catholic"  means universal. So the Alexandrian's attempted to start a catholic religion. "Germ" is also a very appropriate word as we finally unravel the mystery as to why the ancient Catholic Church was so alien to the New Testament Church.

"Historians debate whether the school  arose from within the church at Alexandria or whether it was at first independent of the church.   The evidence it seems to me, points to an independent beginning.  We know that individual philosophers-Stoic, cynics and Gnostic- opened  schools in major cities and drew students to their lectures. Christians followed  this practice." Bruce L. Shelly Church History in Plain Language pg. 95

   We never find these school systems in the New Testament, we only find synagogues which expounded the scriptures, and the house churches of the early church.
  "The first theological school  of Christendom was founded in A.  It was probably modeled after earlier gnostic schools established for the study of religious philosophy." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "Alexandria" Camdem Cobern

  So these schools were from the Gnostic s who inherited them from the pagans.

''The theologians with whom the scientific spirit had it's birth were Platonist...Not that they had been  simply brought up Platonist (as were Justin and Athenagorus, who yet. after they adopted  Christianity. rejected Platonism as the work of demons ); but they remained Platonists, and sought to explain Christianity according to the Platonic categories. In somewhat the same way in which Philo had, two centuries earlier, attempted to explain Judaism. In fact, these Christian Platonist were greatly indebted to Philo." Newman Manual of church history, 1:272.(gathered from Final Authority by William P. Grady)
                  Here we see that the religion, which is not the gospel, was deeply influential to Jews and Christians.

Colossians 2:8Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
⁸ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Jude 4Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
⁴ For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Some of the greatest  Christian leaders used all their influence against such atrocities, but the Egyp Christians were always noted for their excitability. They killed heretics easily, but they would themselves rather than renounce the very slightest  and most intangible theological tenet.
'' Even when the Arabs under the Caliph  Omar captured the city on Good  Friday  (641),  Easter  Sunday was spent by the Orthodox in torturing supposed heretics!  The next morning  the city was evacuated and the  Jew. and Copts received better Treatment the Arabs: than they had from the Rom or Greek ecclesiastics" The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "'Alexandria" Camdem Cobern

  Here we see the violent nature of Catholicism present in the Alexandrine Church. Do they really believe they are followers of Christ when they cannot tum the other cheek?  When the takeover by radical Muslims is seen by all as a more peaceful alternative to your church, then you might be Legalistic! 
"The oldest autographic Christian letter known (3rd cent.) proves that at the time  the church was used as bank, and it's ecclesiastics (who whether priest or bishops, were called  'popes') were expected to help the country merchants in their dealings with Roman  markets." The International Standard Bible  Encyclopedia ''Alexandria" Camdem Cobern
  This mix of business church and state seems to contradict the teaching of Christ.

John 2:13-16Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
¹³ And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, ¹⁴ and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: ¹⁵ and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; ¹⁶ and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
Matthew 21:12-13Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
¹² And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, ¹³ and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

B.  Clement of Alexandria (teacher from Plato and Christ)

"His parents were pagans; but young Clement was converted in unknown  circumstances. and then undertook a vast search for a teacher who could give him deeper instruction in the Christian faith." Pg.71 Justo Gonzales The Story of Christianity

      There must be at least a little suspicion when a famous Christian teacher does not have a public testimony.  Especially, if one is from a pagan background.

"And let it not be this one man alone-Plato; but, O philosophy, hasten to produce many  others also, who declare the only true God  to be God. through his inspiration if  in any  measure they  have grasp the truth." Clement (gathered from Final Authority by William P. Grady pg. 85 )         

''According to him,  philosophy has been  given to the Greeks just as the law had been given to the
Jews. Both have purpose of leading to ultimate truth. now revealed in Christ.  The classical  
 philosophers were to the Greeks what the Prophets were to the  Hebrews. "
Justo Gonzales The Story of  Christianity  pg. 72

     Here we see the similarity between the early Alexandrine doctrine and "Council of Trent" Catholicism.  The Bible is not scene as an exclusive source of divine revelation. Instead there is a dichotomy; for the Alexandrian s, the Bible plus philosophy; and for the Catholics, the Bible plus unwritten sacred traditions (which would include Alexandrine teaching).

"Clement is the prototype of the broad. liberally minded, intellectual and philosophically minded Christian theologian who seeks to synthesize Christian belief with culture as much as possible." Roger E Olson, The Story of Christian theology Pg. 85                  
"Clement contrast such people who are satisfied with the rudiments of the faith, with the wise person  or, as he says,  the 'true Gnostic.' Those who are wise go beyond the literal meaning of scripture.'  Pg.73. Justo Gonzales The Story of Christianity.
                                                                                       
The question is, "does Clement want to find a spiritual meaning, which is not intended by the scriptures?".
  "An obvious question for Clement's interpretation of God's nature is. What about the dark wrath of  Yahweh? If God is without parts or passions, why is he described in the Hebrew scriptures as angry, wrathful and vengeful? Clement answered 'Anthropomorphism s!' That  is, he viewed  biblical references to wrath and anger  as mere figures of speech or as ways humans perceive and experience God."
"Clement's ideal person-the true Gnostic-is a human  as much like God as possible  self-controlled, serene, unmoved and unaffected, rational and calm.  One is tempted to think of  Plato's philosopher kings as described in his book 'The Republic'. "Roger E Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 90

    I have  to reject these ideas up front.  The thing that has always attracted me, to the Biblical Christian God is indeed His passion.  It is the God who pours out His wrath because the innocents are murdered and mutilated.  The Christ who is enraged at his temple becoming a den of thieves.  The Jesus who weeps at the death of His followers even if he plans on raising them from the dead.  The Father who loves an undeserving world so much that he would give His only begotten son.  It is His passion which brings praise.  The Question is, if you disagree with God's Character, are you not going to end up with a different God?

C. Origen (student of Clement and teacher of the early Church)

"'However. once  this has be said.  It is also important to note that on many points  Origen is more  Platonist  than Christian.  Thus, for instance, Origen rejects the doctrines of Marcion and of the Gnostics, that the world is the creation of an inferior being; bur then he comes to the conclusion that the existence of the physical world - as well as of  history- is the result  of sin.'  At this point there is a marked difference with Irenaeus, for whom  the existence of history  was  part of the eternal purpose of God.   And  when  it comes to the  preexistence of  souls, and to the eternal cycle of fall and restoration. There is no doubt that Origen strays from what Christianity has usually taught. " Justo L. Gonzales The story of Christian  theology pg. 81   

"I do not condemn them  (authors of scripture) if they even sometimes dealt freely with things which  to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as to subserve the mystical aims  they had in view; so as to so as to speak of a thing which  happened in a certain place, as if it happened in a another, or of what took  place at a certain time, as if it taken place at another time, and  to introduce into what  was spoken changes of their own.   They proposed to speak  the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where it was not possible it was their intention to prefer spiritual to material.  The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say in material falsehood."  Origen, Menzies, Anti-Nicene Fathers, 10;383(gathered from Final Authority by William P. Grady pg. 94)

 Obviously Origen is identical with today s moderate or liberal, denying inerrancy. So would  he desire to be more accurate in words he does not believe in?

''We say that the Savior  and the Holy Spirit exceed  all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded  by the Father by as much or even more  than they exceed the other beings. " Origen quoted by Henry Crouzcl

 pg.203 and later_Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian Theology pg. 110

"We therefore, as the more pious and truer course,  admit that all things were made

by the Logos and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and first in order of all that was
made by the Father through Christ."  Origen Allen Menzies, Anti-nicene Fathers
pg.328(gathered from  Final Authority by William P.Grady)   Pg.91

 At this point it may be that Origen is disqualified as an orthodox Trinitarian or even as a traditional monotheist. Like the Gnostics, he is a Henotheist.  Though theologians prefer to call him a Subordinationist.

''The end of the world, then, and  the final  consummation, will take place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for his sins: a time which God alone knows, when he will bestow on each one what he deserves.    We think. indeed,  that the goodness of God, through his Christ,  may  recall all His creatures  to one end, even his enemies being conquered and subdued." Origen (gathered from  Final Authority by William  P.Grady   Pg.92-93

   Origen was a Universalist, who denied the eternal nature of Hell and exclusive salvation, not only the salvation of man but all creatures, including Satan.

"In the early fourth century Origen was considered by many Christians to have been the greatest teacher of the church. He was not generally considered a heretic yet. "  Pg. 42 Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology

What is disturbing is not that Origen alone had these views, but that his school and much of early Christianity followed his lead.  It is obvious That Origin when understood altogether was a false teacher who brought the church under false teaching.  From my studies here and elsewhere, it is my belief, that the Roman Catholics would inherit much of their theology from Origin and other Alexandrine teachers.  While Rome built the Frankenstein body.  It was Alexandria that formed the perverted monstrous mind.

II.  Jerome (The Revisionist of Rome)
A. Jerome's Past
Pagan influence) "He was an ardent admirer of classical learning, and felt that this love for an essentially pagan tradition was sinful.  His inner turmoil on the score peaked when, during a serious illness, he dreamt that he was at final judgement and was asked: 'Who are you?'  'I am a Christian,' Jerome answered.  But the judge retorted: 'You lie. You are a ciceronian.'  After that experience, Jerome resolved to devote himself fully to the study of scripture and of Christian literature.  But he never ceased reading and imitating the style of the classical pagan authors."
The story of Christianity Justo Gonzales pg. 201
    Sexual addiction)
  Jerome was already committed as a Christian "But his conversion to ascetical Christianity was still years away and there are indications that his ardent but less ennobling, sexual adventures that were to cause him much more remorse of conscience"
  "In the sun-scorched barren retreat he spent several years praying 'Although my companions were scorpians and wild beast, time and again I was mingling in dance with girls.'"
   I want to be clear in writing this; I believe that we are all sinners and therefore  saved by God's grace(Christians).  So I want to be careful not to convey judgment on Jerome in that way.  However,  I'm delving into the character of Jerome to see how to evaluate where he was at spiritually.
Monastic influence)
    What was Jerome's answer to his problem?  One of the greater influences upon Jerome was Egyptian monasticism.  Monasticism is based off of a few passages of scripture intertwined with Gnostic and platonic philosophy and theology.
"Some time later Origen, following the Platonic ideal of the wise life, made arrangements to live on mere subsistence level, and lead a life of extreme asceticism-it is said that he even took literally the word of Christ about those who made themselves 'eunuchs for the kingdom.'  Also, although Gnosticism had been rejected by the church, it's influence could still be felt in the widely held notion that there was a fundamental opposition between the body and the life of the spirit, and that  therefore in order to live fully in the spirit it was necessary to subdue and punish the body."
Pg. 137 The Story of Christianity  Justo Gonzales


The idea of sanctification and holiness by works and attacking the flesh goes against scripture.

Galatians 3:3-7 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham."


It is a little known fact that following the flesh is reference to works based salvation, because the follower of Christ is trying to become holy through there flesh.  Yet good works can not attain salvation in their Christian living much like their conversion.
  It is obtained by faith.  It is a well known fact that the monastics followed Catholicism in the view of there works based salvation.

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
3:9 and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Paul was imperfect and struggled with his flesh. Yet he lived by grace, and fellow Christians accepted the godly teaching he had.  Paul advises the same of us.  Christian spirituality is not to war with the physical or work our way to heaven.  It is lived by God's grace as we praise Him for it.


1 timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"
   This teaching of Paul warns us to stay away from future false teachers.  Forbidding marriage and abstaining from certain meets were a signs of false teaching.
   Monasticism would push millions into a life of celibacy.  They would also over emphasize the practice of fasting.  In the end Monasticism takes the focus away from evangelism and family raising, for a godly isolated life.
Verse 4 shows the difference between Gnostic and Christian spirituality.  Nothing made by God  is naturally evil, only if it is based in an evil manner.  Yet the legalism of monasticism is historic for poor interpretations of the scriptures to war against anything physical.
  One only needs to look  at the testimony of Martin Luther to see how this lifestyle can not lead to salvation.
   Jerome was not simply effected by monasticism but was a major proponent.
   "Jerome, besides writing the life of Paul the hermit, translated Pachomias' rule into Latin and he himself became a monk--although an unusually one.  Since Jerome was one of the most admired and influential of his time, his works, and his example had a significant impact on the Western Church, which thus became more interested in the monastic spirit."  The story of Christianity Justo Gonzales pg. 147   
Yet did his lifestyle really cure his sinful desires?





B. Rome and Jerome
   "In the year 383, Pope Damasus urged Jerome (ca. 342-420), the most learned Christian scholar of his day, to produce a uniform and dependable text of the Latin Scriptures; he was not able to make a totally new translation but to revise a text of the Bible in use at Rome.  Jerome's first inclination was to say 'No, thank you' to the pope's invitation.  He wrote:
    'You urge me to revise the Old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of scriptures that are now scattered throughout the world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the original. The labor is one of love, but at the same time it is both perilous and presumptuous- for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all... Is there anyone learned or unlearned, who when he takes the volume in his hands and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, will not break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections in them?" Bruce Metzger The Bible in Translation pg. 32
   Here we see the now ancient scholar Jerome groaning over the task of taking sovereignty over the Word of God,  just as the later text criticism movement.  Like Pontus Pilate he is attempting to wash his hands of his personal guilt as what he fears "a forger and profane person". Like Pilate he is a servant of Rome who claims this authority over the King of Kings. Jerome conducted his translation under papal authority.  This assumes that the Pope had the priesthood of the church and therefore authority to preserve God's Holy Word.  But according to Peter, whom the Pope claims his authority derives,  the priesthood belongs to the body of saints.

1 Peter 2:5-10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
    The apostle Peter gives the priesthood to born-again believers.  Therefore the believing congregation had the authority to preserve God's Word and not hierarchical authorities.  Yet Jerome's translation was authorized under a different priesthood.
   Could this be an example of Catholicism taking precedents over the Word of God?
"Many Roman Christians at the time were rather cool toward Jerome's crusade for asceticism and virginity which they regarded as extremist.  One of them was a layman, Helvidius, who in his published refutation of Jerome strove to prove that even Mary after the birth of Jesus lived a normal married life with Joseph.  This attack on the perpetual virginity of the Mother God aroused Jerome to an absolute fury, which he unleashed in reply, against Helvidius. The perpetual virginity of Mary was henceforth to be an unassailable doctrine of Catholic Christianity." Thomas Bokenkotter A Concise History of the Catholic Church pg. 69
   Obviously, Jerome wasn't just effected by Roman-ism, but he was one of it's top defenders.  But Jerome's affinity for Mary has roots in the pagan Egyptian Jewish community.
Jeremiah 44:¹⁵ Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, ¹⁶ As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. ¹⁷ But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. ¹⁸ But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine."
The Catholic Church gives Mary the very pagan title used of the Egyptian pagans.
“Ave ave, ave, Maria! Ave, ave, Maria! In heaven, the blessed thy glory proclaim, On earth, we thy children invoke thy fair name.”Immaculate Mary #37
“Hail holy Queen, enthroned above, O Maria!… Turn then most gracious Advocate, O Maria!” Hail Holy Queen enthroned Above #38
“Hail Queen of Heav’n the ocean Star, Guide of the wand’rer here below!
Tossed on life’s sea, I claim thy care, save me from peril and woe. Mother of Christ, Star of the Sea, pray for wand’rer, pray for me.” hymn 72vrs.1 Hail Queen of Heaven Parish Mass book and Hymnal In accordance with New Revised Liturgy Catholic Publishing Company NY(1967)


C. Jerome and Alexandria

"Another project he undertook at this time the translation of thirty seven of Origen's writings for obvious reasons.  As a biblical scholar, daring speculative theologian, and prolific polymath.  Origen (d.c. 254) was the greatest mind produced by the church before Constantine. Jerome's enthusiasm for Origen at first knew no bounds and he often borrowed freely from the masters writings.  Later, when a strong anti-Origen movement surfaced in the church, Jerome did a switch and played down his immense debt to the Alexandrine genius." Thomas Bokenkotter A Concise History of the Catholic Church  pg. 67
   "Then Jerome went on to Egypt where he visited the alexandrine Scholars as well as the desert dwellings of the monks." The Story of Christianity Justo Gonzales pg. 204
   Here we see the connection I mentioned earlier, the sins of Alexandria would be passed on to infect the rest of the Roman Empire.  From Origen to Jerome, and from Alexandria to Rome.  Now to be fair once Origen was ousted as a heretic, Jerome changed positions and attacked all who would defend Origen.  However I believe this was a dishonest attack.  Origen's writings were already old and Jerome had well read them when he was at first an admirer.  Conveniently, Jerome made this turn when everyone else did.

Codex Vaticanus
   "In time, however, this hostility towards the monks in Christian Rome- Which Jerome thought still resembled Babylon led him to withdraw to a monastary at Bethlehem, were his linguistic skills were put to use in translating the Old and the New Testament from the original tongues into literary Latin.  The result was the so-called Vulgate, the authorized version of the Bible in Roman Catholicism until recent years.." pg. 135 Church History in plain language Bruce L. Shelly

   "The striking coincidence of the Greek of the Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate leads to the establishment of the same conclusion.  This version received the corrections of St. Jerome during his abode in Palestine: it is thus only probable that the Greek copies, after which he modeled it, were those, which were from Palestine. were used in the monastery, into which he had retired. But these he assures us were of the edition of Eusebius. For this edition he had imbibed an early partiality for Gregory of Nazianzum who first put the scriptures into his hands, who had been educated at Caesarea Palestine."
Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or received text of the New Testament ( London F.C. & J. Rivington Publishers. 1815). 83-84.

"His revision was hasty and became more or less confused with the old Latin VSS to which people clung to as they do all old VSS.  Having probably completed the NT from the Gr. Jerome began immediately on the OT from the Greek of the LXX."  The International Bible Encyclopedia: Vulgate

Septuagint and the Vulgate
  As I have written elsewhere in this book the oldest copy of the LXX was originally found in the Vatican manuscript.  Of course this the LXX in it's fullest most completed draft. There is proof from Origen's Hexapla that the LXX was constructed several times over.  Ironically the infamous Apocrypha of the inter-testimonial period was not something Jerome wanted in the collection.  However, thanks to the pressure of theologians such as Augustine, eventually Jerome translated the books and after he died, they had them included in his Vulgate. The vulgate had some alexandrine readings.
   "The exact date of the pope’s commission is not given: it was probably in 382—the year of Jerome’s arrival in Rome—or early in 383, in which year the Gospels appeared in revised form. Damasus asked simply for a revision of the Old Latin versions by the help of the Greek rather than a new version Jerome collated Greek manuscripts, and carefully compared them with the “Italian” type of Old Latin texts; where possible the Old Latin was preserved. Thus, Jerome approached the task with a conservative spirit. Still the result was a considerable departure from the Old Latin version, the changes being (1) linguistic, removal of provincialisms and rudeness, (2) in interpretation, e.g. supersubstantial is for επιουσιον, epiousion, in the Lord’s Prayer, ⁽¹⁾ (3) the removal of interpolations, (4) the insertion of the Eusebian Canons."http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html
  Jerome pieced together the New Testament from Alexandrine manuscripts which he got from Eusebius and ultimately Origen.
   Although Jerome should be commended for taking a sensible, yet controversial approach of Consulting the Hebrew manuscripts.  The move from the LXX to the Vulgate represents a move from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism.
 "The inevitable split between East and West, both politically and ecclesiastically, and the split between Greek and Latin Christianity, rendered the existence of a standard Latin Text imperative.  Christianity was felt to be the religion of the book, and hence that book must be inspired and authoritative in every word- even it's order of words. Pope Damasas determined to remedy this state of affairs, and with all the authority of the Papal See commissioned Jerome to produce an authentic and standard authorized VS." The International Bible Encyclopedia: Vulgate


III. Papal Authority vs. Scriptural Authority
   The Papal system is one of the most powerful religious systems in world history.  Even today the Pope has more authority and powers that no other religious authority has.  For instance the pope has monarchical authority over Vatican City, which is recognized by the united nations as a Sovereign nation.  Therefore, the Pope has special status and credit.
    "From the early years of the church, there has been a hierarchy, that is, different degrees of authority, bishops, priests, deacons.  Bishops have the full authority of the apostles, priest some of the powers, and deacons lesser powers." pg 141Anthony Welhelm  Christ Among us a modern presentation of the Catholic faith

    "The Bible is also the work of men who expressed their own thoughts as they wrote in their own way.  The human authors were not mere passive instruments of God but wrote freely, using the language and style of their time and culture to communicate their message in a way that seemed more appropriate to them.  The writers were like us, sinful, subject to error.  Sometimes they did not grasp the fullness of God's revelation." pg. 159 Anthony Welhelm  Christ Among us a modern presentation of the Catholic faith

   "Infallibility is expressed by the belief of the people of the church who are in union with the pope and bishops.  When the people as a whole believe the doctrine, it must be true 'The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One .....can not err in matters of belief.' (Constitution of the Church, no. 12)" pg. 150
Anthony Welhelm  Christ Among us a modern presentation of the Catholic faith
 Notice that the Catholics believe that the church can not err even though the writers of the gospels can!!

B. Blasphemy of Papal Authority
  "The title 'Pope' means 'father of fathers' and was once used for the heads of all important diocese; it came to be used soley of the bishop of Rome in the 11th century.  The Popes have rejected other titles such as 'universal bishop,' which might seem to derogate from the position of their brother bishops.  'Pontiff' which has been sometimes used, comes from Imperial Rome and means bridge-builder' or Priest connecting God and man."  Anthony Welhelm  Christ Among us a modern presentation of the Catholic faith
    The Bible specifically teaches that Jesus is the High priest between God and man.

Hebrews 9:11-10:14Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
1 timothy 2:  5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Jesus does not teach us to use the terminology  father, for God is our father.

John 8:38-44Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father.
Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Matthew 23:9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
2 Peter 2:15-21Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
15 which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. "

It is obvious that Peter taught that the very words of Scripture were of God and not man. Secondly, concerning the office of Apostle.

Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

   Notice that Peter is addressing the entire congregation of saints and not just the apostles.

Acts 1:21-26
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
   Finally, the apostles were not interested in anymore than the number of twelve apostles with Paul as last.


1 Corinthians 15:by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
   Therefore the Bible's contradiction with Roman Catholic religion is obvious.










C. Historic attack on the Scripture

    "It is evident from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit [paraphrasing Trent]...... we have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish this pestilence..... this defilement of faith so imminently dangerous to souls" Pope Pius VII encyclical letter of 1816 addressed to the primate of Poland.{Gathered from Dave Hunt,  A Woman Rides the Beast pg.328}
These attacks did not stop in the 20th century either.
   "On may 27, 1923, protestant bibles were burned in Rome, 'In honor of the virgin'; nine years later, in 1932, during Ireland's Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Protestant gospels were publicly burned; almost a decade later, in 1940, Franco had more than 100,000 protestant Bibles destroyed and ground to pulp or burned.  On Dec. 4, 1949 all protestant Bibles by order of the mayor of Toribio Cauca Columbia. In May 1950 The Bibles of the protestant chapels in the district of the La aguardo Casonare, again in Columbia, were ceremonially burned."  Dave Hunt A woman rides the beast

Lack of common language Bibles
 Under the papal rule of Western World the Bible was relegated to the Vulgate whether or not(usually not) people could understand the Latin text. To print the Bible in the common language was seen as a direct threat to Papal Authority as soul interpretor and the authority of the church.  Today, the catholic church encourages multiple translations and dogmatic liberalism in order to preserve authority from the opposite extreme.

Roman Catholics pioneer textual criticism
Richard Simon: "Biblical scholar from 1662 to 1678 he was a member of the french oratory. Hi Histoire Critcque du Vieux Testament (1678), arguing from the existence of duplicate accounts of the same incident and variations of style, denied that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. He is generally regarded as the founder of Old Testament criticism".Elizabeth A. Livingstone, ed The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the christian church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 476.
John Mabillon) A benedictine monk who stirred up controversy by putting certain Roman Catholic documents in doubt in his book "Latin Paleography in official documents" Ironically, another Benedictine priest Father Bernard de Montefaucon went and applied his critical method exposing rome and then applied it on the Textus Receptus in his book Paleographic Gracea. Putting the Bible on trial for the crimes of the Catholic church! https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Jean_Mabillon

Jean Astruc)(Sauves, Auvergne, March 19, 1684 - Paris, May 5, 1766) was a professor of medicine at Montpellier and Paris, who wrote the first great treatise on syphilis and venereal diseases, and also, with a small anonymously published book, played a fundamental part in the origins of critical textual analysis of works of scripture. Astruc was the first to demonstrate — using the techniques of textual analysis that were commonplace in studying the secular classics — the theory that Genesis was composed based on several sources or manuscript traditions, an approach that is called the documentary hypothesis.http://www.thefullwiki.org/Jean_Astruc

Johann adam mohlar:"The first Catholic theologian to apply a critical-historical analysis to the development of doctrine, Moehlar is important as both the theologian and as a german historian."https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1960&context=open_access_etds

The catholic counter-reformation was in full effect at this time.  It was an obvious agenda that Biblical Authority must be undermined, if not destroyed, in hopes of destroying protestant authority And restoring the authority of the Holy Roman Empire.

th

Westcort and Hort's affinity for Catholicism



Carlo Martini
" Carlo Maria Martini was born 15 February 1927 in Orbassano in the Province of Turin, Piedmont, to Leonardo, an engineer, and Olga (née Maggia) Martini. He was baptised on the following 22 February. He was educated at Istituto Sociale, a school run by Jesuits in Turin. He entered the Society of Jesus on 25 September 1944 and was ordained to the priesthood by Cardinal Maurilio Fossati on 13 July 1952.^[4] Martini completed his studies in philosophy at the Jesuits' House of Studies in Gallarate, in the province of Milan, and theology at the faculty of theology in Chieri.
In 1958, Martini was awarded his doctorate in fundamental theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, with a thesis exploring the problems of the Resurrection accounts. After some years of teaching at the faculty of Chieri, he returned to Rome and earned another doctorate in Scripture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, graduating summa cum laude, with a thesis on a group of codices of the Gospel of Luke."
"For years many "progressive" Catholics harboured hopes that he himself might eventually ascend the papacy, but when John Paul II died, most commentators believed that his election was unlikely, given his liberal reputation and apparent frailty" Wakin, Daniel J. (18 April 2005). "Cardinals Gather Today in Secret to Elect the Next Pope". New York Times. Retrieved 5 September 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Martini#cite_note-6

As mentioned elsewhere, Carlo Martini is a Roman Catholic Cardinal.   He has the largest diocese of all the Cardinals.  In Catholicism cardinals are considered to be princes among the empire of the pope. It is obvious that Martini must therefore hold strictly to the church's teachings.  In his dealings with the translation of the NIV Bible, it is obvious that translating a Bible which allows for his interpretation  is going to have a bias from Him in favor of Catholicism.


Carlo martini was a high ranking member of the Jesuit order.
"Finally, though not initially formed for the purpose, they aimed to stop Protestantism from spreading and to preserve communion with Rome and the successor of Peter. The zeal of the Jesuits overcame the drift toward Protestantism in Poland-Lithuania and southern Germany." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus
  Even sanitized by Wikipedia, it is obvious that the Jesuit philosophy is in strict opposition to Protestantism.  Why did evangelicals allow someone dedicated to their destruction to have the ability to control the transmission of their Bibles?

B. Catholic Bibles

The Catholic Bible has always had problems in that it is based off of the wrong canon, wrong manuscripts, but also the wrong translators.  I have argued the canon and manuscript issues in other places, but I want to elaborate this point about the translators.

Catholic Bibles are printed by Catholic men.  This means that these men will translate the Bible according to the will of the Vatican and Pope and not necessarily according  to the truth.  These men all disobey the gospel by trying to work their way to heaven.  Therefore, these men are not born again and this can have an affect on their fidelity to translation.

The Bibles of the Catholic Church have a very awkward  place in the history of the Church.  Many times Catholics would ban not only Protestant Bibles but Catholic Bibles as well!

"'And instead  of blushing at such unpriestly conduct, you seem to be proud  of it.' angrily replied  the bishop.

"I do not understand, my lord, why a priest of Christ could blush for distributing the Word of God among his people; as I am bound  to preach that Holy Word,  it is not only my right hut my duty to give it to them.  I am fully persuaded that there is no preaching so efficacious and powerful as the preaching of our God Himself; when speaking to us His Holy  Book  '

'This  is sheer Protestantism. Mr. Chiniquy, this is sheer Protestantism, 'he answered angrily.

'My dear Bishop. 'I answered calmly, 'if we give the Bible to the people and invite them to read and meditate on it as Protestantism, our holy Pope Pius the Vl  was a good Protestant, (or in his letter to Martini, which is probably in the first pages of the beautiful Bible I see on your lordship's table. he not only blesses him for having translated that Holy  Book into Italian. but invites the people to read it.'

The bishop. assuming an air of supreme contempt, replied: ·Your answer shows your complete ignorance on the subject on which you speak so boldly. If you were a little better  informed on that grave subject,  you would  know that the translation by Martini, which the Pope advised the Italian  people to read, formed a work of twenty-three big volumes in folio, which, of course, nobody, except very rich and  idle people could read. Not one in ten thousand Italians have the means of purchasing such a voluminous work; and not one in twenty thousand have the time or the will to pursue such a mass of endless commentaries. The Pope would never  have given  such an advice to read a Bible.  As the one you distribute so impudently.'" Charles Chiniquy  "Fifty Years in the church of Rome"    Chapter 55                  

This dialogue is-from the 1800's in a Chicago 'Catholic diocese between a priest and his

bishop. The priest was being barred from distributing the catholic Bible to Catholics.  It gives us the true Spirit of the Catholic Church as it relates to it's Bible.  Catholicism  has it's own rule and order. It prefers not to be challenged even by a bible of it's own canon and translation.  Catholics typically understand their faith in terms of tradition and worship. The Bible can get in the way of that authority and if it does then it must submit to the Church.


NRSV

The New Revised Standard Version followed in the footsteps of it's predecessor  in an openly liberal and Catholic direction soon liberal protestants and Catholic  pews would be filled with this translation. It would soon be as popular if not more being translated with the Apocrypha.

"These categories do not express value judgments about  the books in question: to call a hook non-canonical is not to say that it is necessarily unimportant or worthless. It is simply to say that it does not belong  in the Christian Bible. "

''Esther itself  exists in a short form in the Hebrew Bible, but in Greek, Latin, Slavonic  it appears in a longer form  with additional incidents, speeches, and prayers.  Protestant Apocryphas usually print simply the parts that are additional under the heading 'Additions to Esther' But these make no sense on their own, so the NRSV has translated the Greek  Esther in full." John Barton "The  Nature and Formation of the Biblical Canon '' New Revised Standard Version:The Access Bible

     This is an obvious example of liberal  bias destroying all understanding of the Bible and inspiration. Barton first claims that the canon  is not a value judgment.  But it is a value judgment. Either this book is inspired  by God or it is not.  Now this may not be a secular judgment. The book may be accurate, a literary masterpiece and a best seller etc.  Howeve-5o simply qualify this as the "Christian Bible" is to argue  that this is not universally God's word.  NRSV Editors previously bragged about translating both the Catholic and  Eastern Orthodox canons alongside the Protestant Canon.  It is obvious that this group has no concern  over what the true canon of scripture is.  This argument proves that there is no distinction of what is and is not inspired in their eyes.

C. Protestant Bibles affected by Catholicism

RSV

The Revised Standard  Version was of the first protestant  New Translations to be marketed to the Catholic community.  It soon included the Apocrypha.

"Few  American Protestants even know that a King James Version of the  Apocrypha existed because it had rarely been printed as a part of the Bible.  The RSV Apocrypha project thus seemed destined from the outset to appeal less to evangelical protestants than to ecumenically minded Catholics.
"Indeed, Catholic scholars on the other side of the Atlantic almost immediately took all interest in the RSV Apocrypha,  which would be produced by Thomas Nelson and Sons in 1957.

''The General editor of the Commentary["A Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture"], Bernard Orchard, contacted H. Peter Morrison of Nelson in 1953 about the possibility of preparing a catholic edition of the RSV.

"Morrison liked Orchard's idea and contacted Luther Weigle about the  possibility of modifying the RSV lo satisfy Catholic readers.

"Weigle agreed, so in July 1954 he and Gerald Knoff, executive secretary of the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches, met in London with officials from Nelson and a subcomittee Catholic Biblical association of Great Britain.  The Catholic scholars outlined some of the textual changes they regarded as necessary, including the substitution of 'brethren' for Jesus 'brothers' to safeguard, ironically the perpetual virginity of Mary. The total number of anticipated changes was small, and Weigle signaled the RSV committee's willingness to consider a formal list of emendations."
Here we see the RSV actually making Catholic Bibles.  The idea of Catholics dictating to "protestant" scholars what to and not translate in order to safeguard their false teachings is idiotic to start off with.  But the fact that these scholars were openly changing the word of God, so as not to offend unsaved Catholics shows their own apostasy.

1Tim 2:13 For this cause also  thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

NIV

The NIV can be thought of as the "New Evangelical" Bible.  It could also be seen as Neo­-orthodoxy's gift to conservatives. The influence of Carlo Martini can be seen in several passages.

1Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, ² as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: ³ if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."
"2 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. ² Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, ³ now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." 1 Peter 2:l-3 NIV

Here we see, if we look close enough, a few places with catholic bias. "Sincere milk" is no longer the word of God. Salvation is something  you grow up in as oppose to something you simply have completely.  The Lord is now a substance that you can taste. (Transubstantiation) So the emphases of Peter is no longer growing in the word of God, but instead coming closer to salvation through the sacraments. By the way "of the Word" is in the Textus Receptus and is even used NASB Alexandrine translation.  "Gracious.. is the proper translation  because the tasting is obviously referring to the "milk of the word" and not at all to eating Christ.

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

"to be minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Romans 15:16 NIV

"You see how they are seeking to portray the Apostle Paul as a priest, something he would have abhorred.  The word they try to put forth as meaning 'priestly' is not an adjective at all, but a verb, and it has nothing to do with 'priest'. This verb is used only in this verse. It is probably a derivative of, or an adaptation of ieros {2413) which means sacred and holy." Jay P.Green

 Unholy hands on the Bible Volume II  

Remember if Paul is a priest, then the Apostles are a priesthood. This new translation just happens to give way to Papal Authority.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; a

''God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.  He did this to

demonstrate his  justice, because in his forbearance he had le(t the sins the sins committed beforehand unpunished. " Romans 3:25 NIV

Now here we see a little bit of Romanism mixed with liberal protestant theology. The Word for propitiation has been replaced by sacrifice of atonement.  Then we go from declaring righteousness to merely demonstrating  righteousness in light unpunished sin, or botched judgment.  This fits the governmental theory of the atonement, whereby  God sacrifices Christ of an example of the depth of sin.   

In the AV, we see that the sins of the past were paid for by Christ on the cross.  Yet through

the sentence structure and comma usage we see the NIV implying that the sins of the past were not paid for, henceforth "unpunished". Yet wasn't Christ punished on the cross for our sins? The AV had the vocabulary to use the word "unpunished" yet they chose not to leave us with a false impression.

The changing of the word propitiation to atonement has been condemned  by conservatives across the board. Gordon Clark refers to this dealing with a passage in first John. "an atoning sacrifice for sin is dangerously vague. All sorts of rituals can be called atoning sacrifice.  But salvation, in the Christian sense of the term, requires one very definite type of sacrifice, namely propitiation.  John is not at all so vague as the NIV. He is perfectly specific.  Christ's atoning sacrifice is a propitiation.  Its aim was to appease the wrath of an angry God; and it succeeded in doing so" First John, Trinity Foundation, Jefferson Maryland 1980l,Pg.46 )

John 1: ⁴² And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
John 1:⁴² And he brought him to Jesus.Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter^[g])."NIV
"g.John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock."
          Not wanting to offend the roman catholic contributers, The NIV replaces the more accurate word stone, becase Peter was not the foundation, but a small stone. they translate "peter" and in the notes they say "rock" trying not to offend the office of the papacy. Thus hiding the truth revealed in Greek.

Knowing the immensity of this subject I will cut this short. From this and other passages it is obvious to me that Roman Catholic translators and critics behind NIV translated the evangelical translation in such a way as to make it more friendly to Catholicism.
In conclusion the primary distortion of Holy Bible historically been by the Catholic church as instructed from Alexandrine theology.