A Chronology of Apostacy

[Nazaroo]

Year - Event

135 Holy Ghost Baptism 135 A.D.
135 Premillennialism invented
150 Infant Baptism Advocated
250 Origen documents changes Jews made to Hebrew OT
312 Christianity made a 'State Religion'
392-410 Jerome attempts to adopt Jewish OT for Latin Bible
400 Doctrine of Hereditary Depravity
400 Salvation by Faith Only
431 Necessity of Infant Baptism
431 Mary Worship instituted
528 Extreme Unction
533 Emperor declares Bishop John II "Lord of Church"
577 Apostolic Succession claimed
607 Pope Boniface becomes "Head of all Churches"
701 Burning of Candles instituted
730 Images forbidden (idea stolen from Muslims)
795 Incense ordered into use
998 Fasting/Fish eating for Lent
1000 Rosary Beads invented
1009 Holy Water invented
1054 Schism between Latin and Greek Orthodox churches
1096 Crusades invented
1099 Crusaders take Jerusalem
1123 Celibacy for Clergy enforced
1204 Latin "Crusaders" betray Greeks and loot Constantinople!
1215 'Sacrificial Mass' invented
1215 Transubstantiation Doctrine invented
1268-1291 Jerusalem lost to Muslims
1347-1351 Bubonic Plague kills millions in Europe
1453 Eastern Greek Empire falls to Muslims, ending "1000 year reign"
1400-1500 Greeks flee to the West
1510 Erasmus & Henry 8th drastically alter 'Christian Marriage'
1512 Greek New Testament xlated & published in Europe
1540 Martin Luther adopts Jewish OT trying to convert Jews
1517-1720 Reformation: Europe enters 200 year 'civil-war' killing millions.
1545 (Trent) Latins make Apocrypha part of Holy Scripture.
1580 Jesuits invent "Futurist" interpretation of Revelation to divert identification of Roman Catholic Church as Babylon
1700-1900 Unitarians & heretics try to edit NT and finally succeed in butchering it via Anglican Church.
1800s (Oxford Movement) 100s of Anglican priests defect to Rome
1917 World War I - millions sent to die in trenchs.
1920s 'United Church' formed, which abandons all Christian doctrine.
1938-45 World War II - based on Hysterical Anti-Semitism
1950s Bruce Metzger replaces Christian OT with apostate "Jewish" OT (RSV, NRSV NASV)
1960-1980 hundreds of fake 'modern bibles' sold, based on forged OT and mutilated NT.
1990s Homosexual priests ordained.
2000 Gay marriage legalized, homosexuals adopt children.

2009 - 2100 - Unprecedented natural disasters kill millions

Sun goes black as sackcloth.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tom Bryant]

How did you come up with this time line?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Wow....hard to figure out where you are coming from with that interesting list.

 

[annsni]

Yet God is the same yesterday, today and forever - and we continue to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Nazaroo]

Wow....hard to figure out where you are coming from with that interesting list.

I'll take that as a compliment.

In a chronology its often hard to decide what is important and what isn't. I'm still editing my lists.

But many sins are usually rather evident.
Sins like power-mongering, impeding the Gospel,
torture, murder and betrayal.

I meant to add legalized abortion on demand to my list.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"Apostacy"??!!??....


400 Doctrine of Hereditary Depravity
400 Salvation by Faith Only

1054 Schism between Latin and Greek Orthodox churches

1347-1351 Bubonic Plague kills millions in Europe

1512 Greek New Testament xlated & published in Europe
1540 Martin Luther adopts Jewish OT trying to convert Jews
1517-1720 Reformation: Europe enters 200 year 'civil-war' killing millions.

?????

 

[Nazaroo]

"Apostacy"??!!??....


400 Doctrine of Hereditary Depravity
400 Salvation by Faith Only

1054 Schism between Latin and Greek Orthodox churches

1347-1351 Bubonic Plague kills millions in Europe

1512 Greek New Testament xlated & published in Europe
1540 Martin Luther adopts Jewish OT trying to convert Jews
1517-1720 Reformation: Europe enters 200 year 'civil-war' killing millions.

?????

...As I said, its tough to choose what to put into a brief chronology.
Not every point is itself a sin. Sometimes its an indication of one.

The splitting of the Empire and Church into two halves
sure looks like the symptom of a major piece of depravity.
Its a cardinal rule in warfare to "divide, then conquer."

Luther's adoption of the apostate medieval Jewish text
was certainly a tactical blunder and a disaster for Christianity.
It abandoned the historical text it had used and understood for over a millenium.
The next inevitable step was to ask unbelieving Jews to help
translate the Hebrew (much abbreviated/edited) version;
this led to such abominations as the RSV/NRSV O.T.,
which removed or obscured just about every messianic prophecy
fulfilled in the NT.
Christians ended up with [offensive language edited] instead of a real Bible.
Thanks Bruce Metzger, apostate Jewish heretic.

The Western church/empire had not only been rolling apostacy for centuries,
but even began the utterly stupid and horrific "Inquisitions".
The fall of the Eastern Greek half was just in time to inject
some Greek New Testament back into the formerly Christian West.
These are milestones in a history which remains however,
mostly dark and tragic, full of violence, arrogance and sin.

The Bubonic Plague can hardly be left off of a chronology,
being prophesied in the book of Revelation, along with the World Wars.

So any point-form list will need explaining,
and yet the overall view remains almost self-explanatory.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

........................
The splitting of the Empire and Church into two halves
sure looks like the symptom of a major piece of depravity.
Its a cardinal rule in warfare to "divide, then conquer."

Luther's adoption of the apostate medieval Jewish text
was certainly a tactical blunder and a disaster for Christianity.
It abandoned the historical text it had used and understood for over a millenium.
The next inevitable step was to ask unbelieving Jews to help
translate the Hebrew (much abbreviated/edited) version;
this led to such abominations as the RSV/NRSV O.T.,
which removed or obscured just about every messianic prophecy
fulfilled in the NT.
Christians ended up with a [edit] instead of a real Bible.
Thanks Bruce Metzger, apostate Jewish heretic.
...................................

GE:

Thank you very much for this information --- the part on Luther and the OT.

I didn't know about it.

Re the first point -- you apparently knowing about things -- WHAT was the MAIN 'issue' that caused the division in your opinion?

 

[Nazaroo]

GE:

Thank you very much for this information --- the part on Luther and the OT.

I didn't know about it.

Re the first point -- you apparently knowing about things -- WHAT was the MAIN 'issue' that caused the division in your opinion?

If you mean the Greek/Latin split, I think its roots go back to the original empires (Greek and Roman), and the problem of uniting peoples and nations that don't want to be dominated. So this predates Christianity and in some ways has not been solved by the advent of Christianity, because the old ways continue onward.
The Kingdom of God/Christ is an ever-expanding, never-ending kingdom,so it cannot correspond exactly to any earthly kingdom or physical system. When the Roman Empire 'converted' to Christianity, this was in part inevitable, but also in part forced, and only a partial conversion.
The actual disputes between East and West involve competing emperors, and also competing doctrines. One could take a side on one issue without taking the same side on another issue. Thus, one emperor might have been a better choice as a leader or spiritual example, while the other side might have the better doctrine...
On the other hand, while the doctrines appear on the surface to be all-important issues, it is possible that doctrine itself was not the issue as far as God is concerned, except secondarily. "By their fruits you shall know them..." - in this Christ is saying handsome is as handsome does.
Luther supported the giving of the Bible to everyone, but on the other hand, when his personal agenda of converting the Jews failed, he became a rabid anti-Semite and this could hardly have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Calvin may have been a clever systematizer, but he was involved in having someone burned at the stake, hardly an honorable incident. We see flaws in every system and every leader, and the point is, these are NOT SMALL flaws, but fatally revealing and dangerous, because leaders lead: "If the blind lead the blind, they both fall into a ditch".

It seems to me that in the Latin/Greek dispute, the Latins were led by a spirit of domination, while the Greeks one of rebellion. It could be argued on the example of Peter and John in Acts that the Greeks had the moral high ground, but I would prefer not to take sides entirely here. Power is power, wealth is wealth, and greed is greed. Nothing inspiring to see in these wordly affairs.

 

[Rippon]

400 Doctrine of Hereditary Depravity

And it just so happens that it is a biblical doctrine.

1517-1720 Reformation

No,the Reformation was only in the 16th century.

1950s Bruce Metzger replaces Christian OT with apostate "Jewish" OT (RSV, NRSV NASV)

Where are you geeting your misinformation? There was nothing apostate in the RSV and NRSV. Also,Bruce Metzger had nothing to do with the NASB.

1960-1980 hundreds of fake 'modern bibles' sold, based on forged OT and mutilated NT.

There you go again saying completely foolish things. You should be ashamed,but the question is o you have the capacity to blush?

 

[Rippon]

this led to such abominations as the RSV/NRSV O.T.,
which removed or obscured just about every messianic prophecy
fulfilled in the NT.
Christians ended up with a [edit] instead of a real Bible.

I am reporting your post. You have no right to fill the pages of the BB with your ____.

Thanks Bruce Metzger, apostate Jewish heretic.

I looked at several biographies of him on the web and none spoke of him being Jewish.

And although Bruce Metzger was no Fundamentalist --you have no right to call him a heretic.

 

[Nazaroo]

The following is a succinct explanation for the RSV O.T. fiasco:

"The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context.
Christian interpretations, including those of the NT writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament. As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris wrote,

"It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew." (4)

​

The verse most often mentioned by conservatives was Isaiah 7:14, in which the RSV translators rendered the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" instead of "virgin." While this was not a case of a clear violation of the Hebrew (the word must be interpreted according to its context), it was by no means necessary. (5)
And there were many other instances of the same problem, which revealed a pattern of systematic contradiction of the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages. For example, in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as "by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves" contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16.

The contradictions foisted into the Bible by the RSV translators included also some renderings which created blatant contradictions within individual books. For example, in Genesis 9:20, where the ASV had read, "And Noah began to be a husbandman" (i.e. a farmer) the RSV reads "Noah was the first tiller of the soil," thus generating a contradiction with the statements in Genesis 3:22 ("the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground") and 4:2 ("Cain was a tiller of the ground"). It was the belief of the RSV translators that the Book of Genesis is composed of traditional stories that frequently contradict each other, cobbled together by editors who neglected to harmonize them in many places.

The objections of conservatives to the RSV were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament, as well as itself, in so many places, has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches."

- Michael Marlowe, Bible Researcher.com.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html



The 5th Columnists who had infiltrated the RSV OT committee essentially committed sabotage, and violently betrayed the Christian public.

James Moffatt (Union Theological Seminary) had died earlier in 1944, leaving

* Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
* Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
* Fleming James, University of the South, Executive Secretary.
* Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary.
* William R. Taylor, University of Toronto.
* George Dahl, Yale University.
* Willard L. Sperry, Harvard University.
* Leroy Waterman, University of Michigan.
* Kyle M. Yates, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
* William F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University.
* J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University.
* Herbert G. May, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
* Harry M. Orlinsky, Jewish Institute of Religion.​

The RSV was repackaged and sold again by an Ecumenical group deeply involved with the Roman Catholics, in

1973 (with an awful, nearly unreadable translation of the Apocrypha), and again, as
1977 (by Metzger, Oxford U.P. as, "the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: RSV, with 2nd ed. NT")
1990 (NRSV, Oxford U.P., removing all "sexist" language, and creating the 'unisex' version.)
the NRSV was quickly adopted as a replacement of the RSV in the liberal denominations associated with the National Council of Churches. It has also been favored by liberal university professors, for use as a text in "religion" courses.
1991 (re-edited by Metzger/Murphy), and again republished and disguised as a different version[!!!]:
1993 (re-edited by Wayne Meeks et. al, as "The Harper Collins Study Bible" in an attempt to avoid the reputation of the RSV)​

This was really part of a larger Ecumenical plan to gut and dismember Reformation Protestantism, in favor of modern liberalism, a program which was apparently largely successful.

 

[billwald]

"The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context."

Good reason to use the RSV!

 

[Nazaroo]

"The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context."

Good reason to use the RSV!

What sounds like a reasonable principle was in fact a cloak for a false-flag operation to wreck the text of the OT in Christian Bibles.

The text wasn't interpreted without bias, but was interpreted according to modern Jewish-atheist intellectuals. They were already heavily prejudiced against any and all Christian interpretation and understanding of the Hebrew texts, which they themselves had edited over the centuries to remove Christian proof-texts.

 

[DHK]

What sounds like a reasonable principle was in fact a cloak for a false-flag operation to wreck the text of the OT in Christian Bibles.

The text wasn't interpreted without bias, but was interpreted according to modern Jewish-atheist intellectuals. They were already heavily prejudiced against any and all Christian interpretation and understanding of the Hebrew texts, which they themselves had edited over the centuries to remove Christian proof-texts.

According to what Jewish intellectuals? Name them.
According to what Atheist intellectuals? Name them.

This is about as biased as a KJVO person can get. Although the RSV may not be one of the best translations, it was not translated by Jews and atheists. I think you better leave your false allegations and needless drivel off the board. It is easy enough to find out who the contributing editors of the RSV were, and it can be guaranteed the these men were not Jewish and not atheists.

 

[Nazaroo]

According to what Jewish intellectuals? Name them.
According to what Atheist intellectuals? Name them. ...

It is easy enough to find out who the contributing editors of the RSV were, and it can be guaranteed the these men were not Jewish and not atheists.

Just scroll back up: I already answered this:

RSV OT committee

James Moffatt (Union Theological Seminary) had died earlier in 1944, leaving

* Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
* Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
* Fleming James, University of the South, Executive Secretary.
* Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary.

NONE of the following on the NRSV committee were Christians:

* William R. Taylor, University of Toronto.
* George Dahl, Yale University.
* Willard L. Sperry, Harvard University.
* Leroy Waterman, University of Michigan.
* Kyle M. Yates, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
* William F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University.
* J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University.
* Herbert G. May, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
* Harry M. Orlinsky, Jewish Institute of Religion.

They were there as scholars only, representing their university faculties.

I've highlighted at least two Jews.

Are you going to claim Orlinsky was a Christian, (!?!?)
who was a chairman at the JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION?

Wake up, and smarten up.

 

[DHK]

Just scroll back up: I already answered this:

RSV OT committee

James Moffatt (Union Theological Seminary) had died earlier in 1944, leaving

* Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
* Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
* Fleming James, University of the South, Executive Secretary.
* Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary.

NONE of the following on the NRSV committee were Christians:

* William R. Taylor, University of Toronto.
* George Dahl, Yale University.
* Willard L. Sperry, Harvard University.
* Leroy Waterman, University of Michigan.
* Kyle M. Yates, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
* William F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University.
* J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University.
* Herbert G. May, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
* Harry M. Orlinsky, Jewish Institute of Religion.

They were there as scholars only, representing their university faculties.

I've highlighted at least two Jews.

Are you going to claim Orlinsky was a Christian, (!?!?)
who was a chairman at the JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION?

Wake up, and smarten up.

To make the broad statement that they were Jews and atheists is absurd. They were not. You still have not proved your point.

Let me prove the same point that your are doing.
The translators of the KJV were primarily atheists (according to your logic). Why? Very few, if any, were saved. They were mostly high Anglican translators. They were scholars, but that they knew Christ is unlikely. If you look into their personal lives, they lived ungodly lives. There were a couple that could attest to their salvation, but out of the 52 or so translators the majority of them were unsaved (or atheists as you would call them). Does that sound like a fair assessment?

 

[akaspooky]

Divisions are necessary...

...
The splitting of the Empire and Church into two halves
sure looks like the symptom of a major piece of depravity.
Its a cardinal rule in warfare to "divide, then conquer."

"For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."(1Cor.11)

Which matches what John is being shown in Revelation... with the bad parts blossoming... until the 5th and 6th Churches are irrevocably split from each other, with the 5th entering the Great Tribulation as the harlot and the 6th entering Paradise... leaving only the 7th to be dragged through the Tribulation as a purging and learning tool.

Because, while I find it inconceivable that this woman -- who is evidently NOT part of the Church -- has been accepted by the Church, as has been her ceremonies and her feasts. We who were never given rituals to observe, save keeping ourselves from blood and idols and things strangled and fornication... Our Paul was poured out as a drink offering because of these things. And in fact, it is only within Paul's writings that we find the clues to what Jesus is showing John about their 7 Churches.

If this has been covered already, I apologize... I'm new here today.:wavey:

 

[Nazaroo]

To make the broad statement that they were Jews and atheists is absurd. They were not. You still have not proved your point.

Let me prove the same point that your are doing.
The translators of the KJV were primarily atheists (according to your logic). Why? Very few, if any, were saved. They were mostly high Anglican translators. They were scholars, but that they knew Christ is unlikely. If you look into their personal lives, they lived ungodly lives. There were a couple that could attest to their salvation, but out of the 52 or so translators the majority of them were unsaved (or atheists as you would call them). Does that sound like a fair assessment?

Sounds quite accurate to me.
Apparently you have confused me with a KJVOnlyist.
If you look into my posts, you'll see I'm a scientist.
I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference,
since I read Greek and Hebrew.

 

[DHK]

Sounds quite accurate to me.
Apparently you have confused me with a KJVOnlyist.
If you look into my posts, you'll see I'm a scientist.
I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference,
since I read Greek and Hebrew.

Then are you also an atheist?
The point is that these men are religious. They believe in God. They believe in one God unlike Hindus. That makes them theists, not atheists (no-God). Of their state of heart God alone knows for sure. To make a blanket statement and call them atheists is wrong. They were not. They believed in God.