What about West Bumfuck? I hear it is lovely in October...

What about Carthage? Watch the movie Bernie first and keep your eye peeled for the locals featured in it! Almost as fun as the Renaissance Faire. Texas folks are highly entertaining. (GREAT movie, Bernie.)

If the time was moved to early November, I might even come. I have a family reunion in Oklahoma the first weekend in November. I can fly home from Dallas as well as I can from Oklahoma City.

quoting Wiki:

While there are a number of versions to the Bible. There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek
Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin
Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.
King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text
New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version. Another good contemporary English version is New King James Version (NKJV)
The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_Bible#ixzz1z4GtYcTU

...you are just confusing the issue with all those facts!

Blasphemer!

>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.
This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.

no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.
as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.
your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.
only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.
well.you go have fun with that.

Actually my belief is based primarily in personal revelation, but thanks for playing...and yes, you could make a fool out of yourself all day, that's true. The problem with your theory here about the translations is, historians have the original manuscripts the early church used. We know exactly what those bibles looked like and what they said. Perhaps you could try a little research before you correct someone who knows a lot more about bible history than you do. And I'm sorry but almost all of those so-called books you're talking about are gnostic texts. Here's a hint, gnostics aren't really Christians, they're Universalists. The ONLY one out of any of the arbitrary number you pulled out of thin air that maybe should have been in the bible is the gospel of Thomas.

I happen to research these things all the time, and I had already researched this particular case a long time ago. I came to the conclusion, as has practically every other reseacher and historian, that it was a hoax, flat out. I read a little more into it because I see the spiritual side of it, but it is still a hoax all the same. Just as you can say this to me using the nickname "enoch" without any irony, you apparently haven't spent more than 10 seconds verifying what you say has any relevence.

>> ^enoch:
>>

no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.

as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.

your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.

only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.

well.you go have fun with that.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no evidence for this. This whole thing started because someone claimed to find documentation at an isolated monestary (i think in tibet) of Jesus' missing years. It was never confirmed, nor did anyone ever see the documents.
This is just yet another lie trying to cast doubt on the resurrection, so people won't believe that Christ was who He said He was. A lot of people can't make up their mind about Jesus..so they say He was a good man who was very wise. Well, if you read the scriptures you can't believe that. Jesus said outright He was God, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead..so either he is a liar or insane, or He was telling the truth and is our Lord and Savior. There isn't any middle ground there.


no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.

as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.

your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.

only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.

well.you go have fun with that.

I'm not going to re-write a very succinct explanation of Catholic doctrine which you would do well to read before spouting off some juvenile rants against the Pontiff - here's the first three sections from an article on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
-------------------------------------


>> ^WaterDweller:
Same gal as last year: http://www.videosift.com/video/Person-charges-the-pope
Apparently she hasn't changed her clothes for a whole year. Or she just really likes red


In response to this comment below - yeah, it's like becoming an annual tradition or something.

Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'empires, ancient, carthage, rome, tunisia' to 'empires, ancient, carthage, rome, tunisia, furthermore it should be destroyed' - edited by rasch187

"Apologizing for the USA not being perfect...to Germany. GERMANY!

Does he think Germany is one of the 57 US states?"

Do you really want to go down that road? The United States is responsible for the biggest acts of mass murder in the history of man.

It's history, most of the people who participated are now dead. Recently however there's been a lot for the US to apologise for. Next thing you know Obama will say something in Rome and Quantum will be screaming about the massacre of Carthage.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Still waiting for an example where gun ownership by the citizens meant oppressive governments don't come into power or even held in check.


"In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

If Britain had succeeded in disarming the colonies, Britain would have won the American Revolution.
Also Rome easily committed genocide against Carthage after tricking them into giving up their weapons (ca. the Third Punic War)

I'll answer your questions MINK.
the members of the church that were detained in Carthage jail had between them one pepper box revolver. It was fired twice at the over two hundred members of the mob that had surrounded and stormed the building. There was one other weapon, a cane that was used to deflect muskets aiming through the door to the room where Joseph and Hyrum Smith were shoot.

Smith was inside the building when the mob entered, when his brother was shot Joseph was at his side until his last breath, then he walked towards the window and was struck from bullets outside and then from behind as some of the mob had breached the door. He landed near the water pump for the well about 2 stories below.

And please tell me what 'crazy' organizations the LDS church is supporting. I'd be interested in your source for that comment.

And don't compare Jesus to Joseph, that's just asinine. Read the bible and then if you still don't understand I can point out distinct diffrences between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, namely one was perfect the other not so much. Are you suggesting that Joseph should have just thrown himself in front of a gun? I know that I for one would not be willing to die so calmly as he did. I suspect you would, if your being rational agree on that.

>> ^MINK:
deedub, you got me, "resisting arrest" wasn't the right way to put it.
but you also aren't being open.
who shot guns in this story, just the mob?
was smith inside or outside the building when the dust settled?
these things have got to make you wonder. jesus died in a more appropriate way, wouldn't you say? i get the feeling if jesus had tried to jump off the cross and run away, his message would be a little weaker. you have to admit smith had a messy ending to his story.
and... comparing smith to hussein doesn't mean i am saying they are the same.
i am saying that they both led organisations, are you denying that?
i am saying that some people in their organisations were nice. are you denying that?
so then, given those facts, it doesn't make sense to defend mormonism by saying "mormons are mostly nice people" because then you are also defending a lot of other crazy organisations by implication.
it's just logic, man, don't be scared of it, it can help you work out what's going on.

For someone who says the sky is falling, [Al Gore] does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
USA Today


But our current President, George W. Bush, owns a sustainable home that’s off-grid, that features geothermal cooling and heating, passive solar, and greywater systems.

“Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground; one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called graywater, and one tank for black water from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well. The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees.”
Off-Grid.net

Even portions of the home are made from waste materials from a local quarry!

If we use Al Gore as our role model for being environmentally friendly, Planet Earth is screwed.