Wiccan displays ignorance of history - 02/27/2005

merry meet my name Rev. w.  Raven    and  from  my  reading  the  bible is not 100%  true it has been changed at least  3 times  it  was translated  from Latin ,  the virgin  mary wasn't put in till  441 a.d. and add the deity's age so that is almost 500 years after death but you still say it's the truth ! last but not least king james who never read a book becaues he couldn't read . If you want to talk about evil let's talk about the crusades and inquisitions and the plague of Europe in 1450's.  Let's let the blood fall on the side of evil if their is such a thing. If you wish to know more, you can just ask.

Blessed Be


Hi Mr. or Ms. Raven.  Thanks for writing.  I'm curious as to where you got your information... because it is so blatantly wrong, that I would encourage you to get your money back.  Point 1 - the original manuscripts of the Bible were not in Latin.  They were in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  They were translated from those languages into Latin and many other languages.  There are extant ancient biblical manuscripts that date to the 2nd century A.D.  These manuscripts form the basic for many modern translations of the Bible (i.e., NIV and NASB) and are largely in agreement with the King James Version.  Oddly, all of these manuscripts mention Mary in the Gospels, just as our modern Bibles do.  Furthermore, authorship of the various books of the New Testament took place between approximately 50 A.D. and 90 A.D.  Writings from the late 1st century and early 2nd century quote from the New Testament.  In fact, if all we had were the letters and speeches that quoted from the New Testament, we could put together 98% of the New Testament -- that's how much it was quoted early on.  Moreover, it was translated into other languages (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, etc) very early on, and those translations match the ancient Greek texts. Thanks to archaeology and philology, we can be certain that our Bible is as it was written 2000 years ago.  The Catholic doctrine of Mary as an object of worship and devotion developed later, but her role in the gospels was written in the 1st century, not the 5th, as you suggest.  Your source of information regarding the Bible is just incredibly and provably inaccurate.  I'm not sure what relevance the literacy of King James has, as he did not translate the Bible -- he commissioned the translation.  A committee of scholars did the translating.  For more information, you can read our Primer on Bible Transmission here: http://www.contenderministries.org/discrepancies/bibleprimer.php
Many people talk about the Crusades being evil, and no doubt there was brutality involved.  However, most people are so historically ignorant that they don't know why the Crusades were fought.  History records that the Muslims began a systematic conquest of North Africa and the Middle East, killing Christians and Jews or subjecting them to slavery.  A Catholic bishop in modern-day Turkey dispatched a letter asking for help.  The Crusades were an attempt to fight back against the Muslims and reclaim some of the conquered territory.  Was it violent?  Most certainly.  People must remember two things:  the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression, and the Muslims won.  For more information regarding the Crusades, go here: http://www.contenderministries.org/commentary/crusades.php.
I agree with you regarding the Inquisition.  That was an example of Roman Catholics taking violent action against those they considered heretics.  I am not Catholic, and I think they were detestable.  If you wish to know more TRUTH, you may go ahead and ask (and through away whatever source you've been using).  I also encourage you to read the Bible. 
In Christ,
Ben and Jennifer Rast
Contender Ministries