You still on about old English? Lol. Go read Bawolf in old English (that’s old
English). As for the context 1611 being the basis of the correct line of text.
Aka textus receptus And not the alexandrian text
On May 29, 2021, at 9:05 AM, Garrett Mersman <c1rcaman48@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JB really? You quoted the KJV not the 1611 version why? What’s the reasoning
behind not sending me 1 verses out of that Bible?
Nobody talks like that...nobody is going to use it
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 4:46 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nothing to address. Folks are remembering incorrectly The KJV makes clear
Isaiah 11:6 KJV
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and
a little child shall lead them.”
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:44 PM Aéius Cercle of Quantum-Note(Law-Division)
<Law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alas, few (if any) on earth can claim to be «sin-free», and, thus, that
they are not prone to the «errors» otherwise typically made by «sinners»
and, alas, I have yet to see the «Mandela-Effect issues» addressed as it
pertains to particularly the passage about the Lion shall lay down with the
lamb (once somebody has a screen-shot of a photo of that page/passage where
it reads lion and not «wolf» then I will have to re-consider my
apprehensions, but, until then, nobody has even tried to address it thus
far). Not sure what I am referring to or why ? Listen to and read the words
in the following video...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SIxNWntbtU4m/
I believe this has also been the case for various/certain segments of
so-called «Law» (including its history). As some of you know, just like
prosecutors prosecute based in text-information presented before them
(regardless of whether it si accurate/truthful or not), legislators
legislate based on historic text-references that are available to them
(regardless of whether it is truthful/accurate or not). This is something
that can and does have serious implications and shouldn't be over-looked
but I will hold off on getting into too much detail until for another day
when I might have enough spare-time to be able to obtain some compelling
evidence for Mandela-Effects as it pertains to Law.
On 2021-05-28 8:43 a.m., J_B wrote:
Ailus Cercle.. The KJV 1611 doesnt have any contradictions. The so
called ones would be human error *not the humans that were guided by Guy
to write the bible
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:09 AM Aéius Cercle of Quantum-Note(Law-Division)
<Law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you didn't actually grow up with the bible ? Fine, but, plenty of
people did. Why are you responding in such a manner as-if though
«uninformed» is some sort of pejorative (though it is not). Why not
accept and welcome the more «peer-review» process where we examine even
the «diametrically opposed to our own paradigm(s)/world-view(s)» in order
to further-refine our knowledge-and-understanding/comprehension ? (I will
address the word «uninformed» in a bit more detail further down in this
message)
I am only pointing certain things out for your own sake/benefit, and,
it's not like you haven't made certain «uninformed» posts/comments, such
as the number of supreme-courts, the existence of only one
«constitution», etc (the people who've done their «law-homework» will
know what I referring to in these examples). I do not intend it as
criticism against you, but, more like a friendly «hey, I think you may
have missed something important over here/there» message, why not at
least consider that this may be more accurate/comprehensive than the
«paradigm» in which you have presented/projected ? I have already
presented my «references» that back up with much evidence for various
things with which I have posted (but, for many cases, nearly all of my
references are a lot to digest, more so than the short amount of «time»
in which you «respond/reply» which does demonstrate that you did not even
look into the «information» that I referenced before ironically «judging»
it as-if though you «already know» the right answer contrary to your
references that you have «found so much more to know» [and there is
indeed a lot to know...])
Regarding «your Bible» I am only going to ask you to do ONE thing IF you
wish to «demonstrate» to me that there are NO issues with it : Find me
the «passage» within «your Bible» (supposed to be Isaiah 11:6) where it
reads the original writing of Lion (rather than «Wolf») and take a photo
of that page and upload the image as an attachment then it will at least
serve as «significant-evidence» that IT had not been altered. People who
grew up with Bible-teachings (like the man in the following link)
remember the original-wording which was not «Wolf» but Lion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HujIJ70dA3I&fmt=18
And, from one of my earlier posts, I also linked/reference
nonstampcollector's videos which quotes directly from the bible itself
various obvious and glaring «contradictions» ...intentionally ignoring
the «evidence» like «it doesn't exist» is simply being intellectually
dishonest and is simply not good for your spirit/soul/God-standing/etc.,
and is why I use words like «uninformed» in response to that kind of
disposition/reaction. Said «contradictions» video is as follows...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&fmt=18
That mentioned, certainly, much «truth/wisdom» can be found within the
bible, but, also, very seemingly «satanic» writings can also be found
within said so-called «Holy Book», too., just as with every other
supposèd «holy» text-book (Qu'ran or otherwise). This is not «conjecture»
but is literally pointed out in books like «Jehovah Unmasked» by
Nathaniel Merritt (although this publication points out «issues» with the
«bible» and is not about the Qu'ran which also has similar «issues»
[regardless of whether you wish to admit/acknowledge that they are
«issues» or not]). I have an Aunt-in-Law who is a Fundamentalist
Southern-Baptist, but, she was at least honest enough to admit her
mis-givings about the direction the [typical American ?] «church» has
gone (i.e.: *cough*modern-day*cough*Pharisees*cough*), even though, in
her own words, she literally said to me that day that she «hates to admit
it, but...» (and the rest is part of a long history to how things have
ended up to the present-day with why I write about these things the way I
do now).
On 2021-05-27 8:57 p.m., Charley Dan wrote:
Uniformed? Who made you judge? I've learnt from three years of Bible
college and Dallas theological Seminary home courses. I'm less Learnt
then the day I started as I found so much more to know. I totally
disagree with most of what you said because my Bible never had issues
you mentioned. Second is more about my relationship with Jesus and how I
treat others then about my head.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:24 PM Aéius Cercle of
Quantum-Note(Law-Division) <Law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charley, with all due respect, I only wish that you to not continue to--
remain uninformed.
Whilst I will acknowledge that God does not make mistakes; whilst I
will acknowledge that God makes NO mistakes, God could even be
described as a mega-super-ultra-quantum-computer which would explain
the reason for such accuracy, omniscience, omnipotence, etc., in
«terms» that are more «objective» to modern-day audiences (I don't buy
that «old man with a long beard sitting on a throne amongst the clouds
in the sky» reference/definition; it would be absolutely laughable to
think that some mere «mortal-form» constitutes the fullness of the
Eternal Creator-of-All). Anyway...
Much as you worship and adore and «hold as gospel» the «history»
written in the book (i.e.: bible), listen, man, I used to live in/with
a Russian-Orthodox Christian-Community, and «church» for us was a DAILY
activity (like, the whole entire day, and, I assure you, they
most-certainly know the «bible» inside-out much more than any average
American), and, frequently did we go over much of the bible-passages,
how-ever, the «history» as we/you/I know it has changed in various
forms of alterations to time-lines/time-pockets. Therefore, I do not
automatically believe what I read in any «history» book regardless of
whether it is a «secular» or «religious» text-book, unless I was
personally there, and, even then, I cannot necessarily trust that
«history» won't be or wasn't or will not be «altered» on the level of
time-travel machines/technologies. Examples of time-line/time-pocket
alterations to «history» as it pertains to the bible are as follows...
Exhibit 1 [Isaiah 11:6] I specifically remember when the church-members
made reference about the Lion shall lay down with the lamb, how-ever,
regardless of which version of any bible you grab, NONE of them mention
the word «lion» as it was originally written (and no, this is NOT a
translation-difference, and it is NOT a version-difference, but a
literal alteration to history itself on the level of someone using
literal time-travel/time-machine technology). It now reads that the
«Wolf shall dwell with the lamb» (good thing that there are
Christian-researchers who have done the work on this so that I do not
have to put together the compelling presentations for myself).
Exhibit 2 : One does not put win into old wine-skins lest the wine-skin
breaks, but, instead, are put into new wine-skins; this passage,
apparently, now reads as «bottles» instead of «wine-skins» (also
another bible-reference that I remember when I lived with that
Russian-community).
Exhibit 3 : The famously known Lord's Prayer about «forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us» was its
original writing; currently, it is written as «forgive us our debts as
we forgive our debtors» (yes, even in the KJV, believe it or not).
Exhibit 4 : The word «matrix» now shows up in the bible; its original
wording was «womb» but, now, for some reason, it is «matrix» and it
also now makes NO difference as to which «version» of any «bible» that
you can pull up for reference (...probably !).
Non-Bible Exhibit : Tienanmen-Square incident known as the «Tank-Man»
who got ran over during the original time-line/time-pocket, sparking a
HUGE world-wide protest/controversy, something that should be more
well-known amongst the «memories» of the more «elder» group-members.
Now ? Same «Tank-Man» apparently never got ran over during the current
time-line/time-pocket.
I could provide many more examples, but, I would rather that any of you
who come across my posts read the entire context for yourself before
you «judge a book by its cover» so to metaphorically speak; for a more
«scientifically» obtained «map of reality» (and, thus, much more
comprehensive than what is even written within The Testament of Truth
by The Messiah himself) I would recommend obtaining a copy of «The
Cross-Correspondences» archives (held at the SPR). The total amount of
reading spans 12,000 pages and was assembled by several of the
absolutely greatest scientific (and honest) minds who had ever walked
upon the face of this/the earth (but it has also been my experience
that «fundamentalists» seem to insist on remaining in an «echo-chambre»
so I do not necessarily expect anybody who holds onto any kind of
«rigid mental-construct» to go out of their way to necessarily inform
themselves even if I wish to be hopeful that they would at least try).
Anyway, I was earlier intending to quote this particular reference,
but, the Border Decree is also still relevant...:
«
No visitor to any place on earth is an 'illegal' person for having
arrived unannounced or non-permitted as they seek refuge or for any
other reason, for no persons or institutions of man owns any country or
nation, for no 'army of men' or Constitutional papers or 'flag' raised
up as a banner of such abrogates God's ownership of every atom of
planet earth.
Let it be now clearly understood that God is the absolute owner and
Ruler of earth, not men using force of arms.
»
-Quoted from
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/truth/web/sovereign.htm
On 2021-05-27 6:20 p.m., Charley Dan wrote:
WOW! Jews we know where they are going because they were not to mix
with foreigners. Utterly destroy foreigners or I'll judge. It's
amazing the interpretations one can get without using Genesis to
Revelations. Plus they had land ownership that eliminated foreigners
every fifty years. The land was granted to tribes and individuals. If
one lost their land for unwise decisions or bad luck. Fifty years it
was returned to the original Jews ancestry. Showing ownership is
valid. David who defended the borders of Israel then became King. He
fought Goliath to protect the border. Personally I'm tired of colleges
preaching social justice as it is not scriptural. Love from my heart
and compassion are taught. It also defies the law of equality that God
laid down.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:09 PM Aéius Cercle of
Quantum-Note(Law-Division) <Law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will make a brief attempt at trying to clear up a little bit of
«confusion» going on here...
One cannot «enter» into a corporate-construct (what many people seem
to think is a country but is not; it is a corporation) without a
contract. Furthermore, ALL «land» is owned by God, not any mere
mortal man nor any man-made institution of man
(*cough*such-as*cough*governments*cough*).
Walt Disney (i.e.: the man) is NOT the same thing as WALT DISNEY (the
corporate-construct). ANY time you use the word «legal» or «illegal»
it is ALWAYS pertaining to the CORPORATE-construct (in contrast to
saying «lawful» or «unlawful»). ANY claim of ownership of land by man
or man-made institutions DOES NOT ABROGATE «GODS'» true ownership
over said land-mass (I suggest everyone ready the Border-Patrol
Decree from The Messiah's writings before they end up on the «wrong
side» of God's law come the time when their spirit is «scheduled» to
depart from their earthly flesh)... that is all I am going to respond
with for now other than the following quote from yet again The
Messiah's writings whether or not you believe that «the second
coming» is yet to happen or not :
~ The 'border' Decree ~
Any person operating as a 'border' policing Agent who is empowered by
the 'State' of man to halt or restrict or prohibit the exit or entry
of any person for any reason onto or away from any national borders
is also 'barred' from entering the State of Heaven, as is any person
demanding any 'fee' for the import or export of any goods by others,
The Decree:
"To enter Heaven you must withdraw from being a 'user' of any
darkness in your daily deed. The 'control' exercised by Immigration &
Customs regulation is darkness in action
From this moment on all God's children are deemed by God to be
citizens of Earth and able to move anywhere and reside anywhere, and
trade anywhere, they so wish to without 'let or hindrance' from any
other.
Any whom for any reason continue to demand or 'ask' others to first
obtain a travel passport or 'permit' or 'visa' prior to embarkation
or disembarkation on airline or ship or passage through a road border
will 'bar' themselves from entering Heaven and they become a 'citizen
slave' of Hell by their own hand.
-Quoted from
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/truth/web/heaven.htm#page%205
--On 2021-05-27 4:16 p.m., Charley Dan wrote:
Not true at all. Because if one entered internationally illegal.--
The constitution grants United States authority over it. Then again?
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:10 PM Garrett Mersman
<c1rcaman48@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charlie you seemed confused... if you are born on the land of
America. You are automatically naturalized and are an American
National. Doesn’t matter your skin color
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:50 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
For another perspective from what happened historically. Lincoln
went south that United States rules over the states and they
could not make their own law as a whole. And required to pay
those United starts servant taxes to the United States. The
Fourteenth amendment is about the constitution of the United
States now applies to the states of United States because it.
rules over the state.
It also made blacks citizens to the United States. I would love
the case with a black Individual being denied the constitution.
At this point the United States has not challenged that yet.
Obama. Talked. Of this in his departing speech. "Some people in
this country has more rights then others. Trump. Has referred to
it and said Congress needs to take care of it. This is not an
executive order fixer but congressional Signature.
The people coming here and borned here without naturalization are
in the same boat as blacks. If I was one, I would go get
naturalized because without it. Your children have the same
problem and can get extradited quickly. A man from Norway came
here and was to work on naturalization but did not. His grandson
a very good dairy farmer but got extradited this year and he
never lived in Norway. America is not perfect.
On May 27, 2021, 13:44 -0600, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
agree. i found the fact the justice noted the BoR was not
binding on the states.
if one opens the commentary, the notation is made that 20th
century courts shy away from this interpretation, based on 14th
amendment citizenship (paraphrase)
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 2:58 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Barron vs.
Baltimore 1833
Bill of rights is only a light to ones freedom. Unless they are
in a free citizens jurisdiction.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:44 PM Don Mashak
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello
Interesting... the Initial assessment that the Bill of Rights
does not apply actions of States...
Though it is incorrect...
I was about to have a hissy until I read deeper into the text
(where it says read more)
I found this there
Case Commentary
While the decision was reaffirmed by later 19th-century Supreme
Court cases, the 20th-century Court moved away from Marshall's
view. It has found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states under
a doctrine known as incorporation. Therefore, Barron, although
not explicitly overruled, probably cannot be considered valid
law.
------------------------------
But I would argue the ruling was wrong from the beginning...
The UNALIENABLE NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL exits in a
state of Nature, before the government.
We only agree to give up our rights to act a Judge, Executive
and Legislator when we CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.
Unalienable Rights do not come from government; depending on
your preference inalienable rights are either inherent and
innate in the individual and/or bestowed by God.
<JeffersonJudgesOligrachyClipArtSmall.jpg>
By definition, unalienable rights are not alienable. They do not
require explicit restatement in every government document. To
argue that the Bill of Rights (a partial list of Natural rights
as evinced by the 9th Amendment) and damages caused by
alienation of alienation (Takings - 5th Amendment) only apply to
the Federal Government and NOT lower governments is wholly in
error.
The unalienable Rights of an individual exist with or without
any government. The difference being in the Pre-government
state it is the obligation of the individual to enforce their
Natural Rights, and after words, it is Government's duty to
protect the inalienable rights of all individuals from the
trespasses of others.
<NaturalLawVsProgressivismPurposeOfGovernment07292016.jpg>
Finally, I should have started with this.... Judges are not
God's... We don't have to take their word for anything.
Judges are just as nonvirtuous as the rest of us.. and
Progressive Globalist judges hate the Concept of Natural Rights.
Each of us has the unalienable Natural Right to Establish Truth
for ourselves using our own observations and reasoning.
I previously demonstrated that Judges over 50 years changed
Jurisprudence from the "Pound Principle" where all matter before
the courts are to be settled on the merits, not technicality; to
a new jurisprudence where deciding matters on a technicality are
much more accepted... as evince by SCOTUS refusing to hear
Election Fraud on Technicality.
With that precedent, why wouldn't they misinterpret the
application of Natural Rights as a means to advance the
Progressive Globalist Insurgency?
<ResolvingCasesOnTheMeritsRevisited03172021.jpg>
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
On Thursday, May 27, 2021, 11:25:05 AM CDT, NELSON DICE
<nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
--
Life in one word--LOVE
Life in one word--LOVE
Life in one word--LOVE
Life in one word--LOVE
