|
The Lords' Witnesses The Lord said: " Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)
euei
|
|
|
|
The deception surrounding the Ten Commandments
The Conflicting Arrangement of the Ten Commandments as Revealed by a Comparison of the Protestant, Catholic and Hebrew Versions (much of this material taken from a book by Joseph Lewis) This information compiled for you, and subsequent facts will prove, that not all the religions which accept these Commandments as the revealed words of God condense them in the same manner or interpret them the same way. They are arranged to suit the exigencies of the particular creed and to fit the ritual of the particular form of worship. This is an affront to the Word of God! We are told by religious leaders that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that man must not presume to pit his finite intelligence against it. Yet that is exactly what the religionists have done with so important a part of the Bible as the Ten Commandments -- God's supposed words written with his own finger! We are told that regardless of other differences that might exist among these three religions, they are in perfect accord on the Ten Commandments! If there is any place where perfect accord should exist in Biblical matters among the sects, it should be in the Decalogue. If they do not agree about the only message that God is supposed to have delivered himself, how can we expect to find them in agreement on matters about which they admit there exists much doubt and speculation? Although the Protestant, Catholic and Hebrew Bibles vary but slightly and then only textually, the listing to follow reveals a deliberate change made by those responsible for the arrangement of the Commandments.
In the First Commandment, the reader will note that the words "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," is left out of the Protestant version completely, and partially from the Catholic. It forms the First Commandment according to the Hebrews. In the Catholic and Protestant versions, the reference to being "brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," was left out for very good and sufficient reasons! That part of the Commandment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Protestants or Catholics. When the Commandments were written, they were not in existence. They were never in Egypt, and the Lord had no occasion to free them from the yoke of bondage; by this very omission the Ten Commandments are stamped as a purely provincial code, applicable, if at all, only to the Children of Israel. In this respect both the Catholics and the Protestants have judiciously, yet deceitfully, refrained from using it, despite the incontrovertible fact that it is part of the Decalogue, and just as vital as the other parts. In some editions of the Hebrew Bible, the word "bondage" has been substituted for "slavery." The explanation given for this change by the best Biblical authorities is that the Jews do not want to characterize Egypt as a place of slavery while the Jews living in Egypt are enjoying liberty there. Was the integrity of the text sacrificed for the sake of expediency? In wording this Commandment, however, the Catholics were cleverer than the Protestants. They used the first five words of the Commandment but left out the succeeding damaging phrase, and have added, though in a corrupted form, the first part of the Second Commandment. The Protestants, unable to use the First Commandment as biblically recorded, have daringly taken the first sentence of the Second Commandment as the first one in the arrangement of the Decalogue! In an address over radio station WEAF, the second of a series dealing with the Ten Commandments, the Rev. James M. Gillis, C.S.P., made this statement: "On the tablets of Moses, the First Commandment read: 'I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.'" Joseph Lewis challenged this statement of the Rev. James M. Gillis, C.S.P., and state categorically: No such words appeared on the tablets of Moses as biblically recorded, and in making that statement he either deliberately falsified the text or is ignorant of the facts. If the former, it invalidates his right to discuss this question; and if the latter, it reveals his incompetence. Lewis also stated, "If the Rev. James M. Gillis does not accept my indictment, perhaps he will abide by the following quotation taken from the Douay Version of the Bible, "published with the imprimatur and approbation of His Eminence John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York." I quote Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 1 and 2:
Why did the Rev. James M. Gillis fail to include the words, "who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," particularly when he states that "the Ten Commandments are not the voice of man -- they are the revelations of the mind and will of the Almighty," and "whether He whisper or whether He thunder, the message is the same, the infallible, everlasting moral law, in brief, the Ten Commandments"? In the course of his discussion of the Ten Commandments, the Rev. James M. Gillis states that "a lie is a lie, whether it come out of the mouth, or off the page," and that "if to the lie is added fraud, restitution must be made otherwise, in the Catholic system absolution for the sin cannot be obtained." According to his own standard, James M. Gillis himself is placed in the category of those doomed by the dogma of his own Church.
In addition to the italicized words which differentiate the Protestant and Hebrew versions of the Second Commandment, we find that the Catholics leave out the entire Second Commandment. They omit it because it would interfere with the most lucrative part of their ritual -- the worship and adoration of saints and of their coveted "Mother of God" Mary. Catholics not only make "graven images" in direct prohibition and violation of the Second Commandment, but they also worship these images in defiance of an angry and vengeful God. That the Roman Catholic Church has practiced this defiance with impunity for centuries indicates either the impotence of the Bible God or the falsity of the Commandments. Catholic historical records show that the Church has continuously, since the fourth century, published a mutilated set of Commandments and maintained it as the true version by prohibiting anyone from reading the Bible! In fact, this is the very reason Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English, was strangled and burned at the stake. Since the Seventh General Council, 787 A.D., the Second Commandment has either been omitted or falsely explained away. In fact, so cleverly did the Catholic Church perpetrate this fraud that up to and even after the Reformation it was not discovered, and formed the Decalogue as accepted by the Anglican Church as late as 1563. So strongly was this mutilated version of the Commandments entrenched that even Martin Luther did not discover the imposition until several decades after his schism with Rome, and accounts for the Lutherans accepting the Catholic version of the Decalogue. Lewis is constrained to refer to the text of the Decalogue in Exodus of the Douay Version of the Bible for additional evidence of the perfidy of the Catholic Church in omitting the Second Commandment. The heading at the beginning of the chapter is "The Ten Commandments." As explained in Chapter 20, verses 4, 5 and 6:
In order to omit the Second Commandment from the Decalogue, not only must verses 8, 9 and 10 be eliminated from Chapter 5 of the Book of Deuteronomy, but the above verses 4, 5 and 6 must also be deleted from this chapter as well as from other portions of the Bible. While the Catholic Catechism omits this Commandment from its arrangement of the Decalogue, the Catholic Encyclopedia admits its validity as part of the Ten Commandments and even its application to the prohibitions of making and worshiping graven images! The Catholic Church stands convicted not only by evidence taken from its own records, but by its own authorities. The listing of the Ten Commandments as they appear in the Douay Version of the Bible has additional value to us besides furnishing incontrovertible evidence in indicting the Catholic Church for deliberate deception in omitting the Second Commandment from the Decalogue. That image worship is a degrading superstition and was condemned by the early Church Fathers in scathing terms, is one of the amazing contradictions of Catholicism. St. Augustine, undoubtedly the foremost of the group, said: "He who worships an image turns the truth of God unto a lie." Even the crucifix, which is worshiped and adored today, is as much an idolatrous instrument as the image of a man or woman. It was introduced as part of the worship of the Church only in the latter part of the sixth century, and finally authorized by the Council of Constantinople, 692 A.D. The crucifix was unknown until the sixth century, and liberal Protestants still abhor its use as being beneath the dignity of an intelligent person. The Christians of France, Germany and England condemned the action of the Seventh General Council authorizing the worship of images, and foremost among the opponents was Charlemagne. It would require too lengthy an analysis to give the complete reason why the Roman Catholic Church violates this Commandment and omits it from its version of the Decalogue. Suffice it to say that when Constantine embraced Christianity, he found that the incurably superstitious would not relinquish their idols, and so the Church, after a feeble and unsuccessful effort, merely incorporated image worship as part of its ritual. The financial returns more than justified the compromise with "God's Word." In order to make up for the omission of the Second Commandment, the Catholic Church moved up the third and made it the second. It will be interesting, as we continue this comparison, to see for ourselves how they schemingly provided for the "ten." With the exception of using the first sentence of this Commandment as the first of the Decalogue, the Protestants and the Hebrews differ only slightly in the wording, which is not particularly important in this comparison.
For the first time there is perfect accord between the Protestants and Hebrews on one of the Commandments. The Catholics, however, in order to make up for the omission of the Second Commandment, merely move up the next one, making the fourth the third. There seems to be no justification for the mutilated form in which they express it, nor can I find a reason for its mutilation, except to avoid the embarrassing question of why it is to be observed.
While the difference between the Protestant and Hebrew versions is mostly italicized words, we find that again the Catholic Church has misplaced the Fifth Commandment and listed it as the fourth, with the same omissions.
Again the Catholics have moved the sixth to the place of the fifth, whereas the Protestant and Hebrew differ only textually.
In this Commandment, the Protestants and the Hebrews are also in accord, while the Catholics have placed the Seventh Commandment in the position of the sixth. It is a notorious fact that when the Catholics wish to admonish their adherents against the violation of this Commandment, they never refer to it by number.
Once more the Protestants and the Hebrews are in accord, while the Catholics continue to move up a Commandment in order to provide for the omission of the second. In passing, I should like to mention that this Commandment was once placed before the one referring to killing because at one time adultery was considered the greater offense. In fact, in the oldest Biblical manuscript, a parchment known as the "Nash Manuscript," the prohibition of adultery precedes that of killing.
The agreement between the Protestant and Hebrew versions of this Commandment only emphasizes the falsity of the Catholic arrangement.
The significance here lies in the fact that the Catholics have taken a part of the Tenth Commandment and made it the ninth! Refer again to the 17th verse of the 20th Chapter of Exodus of the Douay Bible, and it will be plainly seen that this Commandment is in one complete sentence and does not lend itself to a division such as the Catholic Church made in order to cover up its duplicity by omitting the Second Commandment. I quote for the convenience of the reader:
If the Tenth Commandment were divided into two verses or two sentences in the Bible, its separation could have been defended on that score; but even such a flimsy excuse cannot be resorted to as a defense in this monumental piece of brazen deceit and hypocrisy. Certainly the Tenth Commandment does not admit of separation. It deals with but one human trait -- covetousness -- expressed in one complete sentence. In addition, the first line of the Commandment, in both the Hebrew and Protestant versions, reads, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house..." The Catholic arrangement of the Decalogue makes "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" the Ninth Commandment, and coveting the neighbour's property the tenth. Catholics apparently use the Deuteronomy version as the source for the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. By doing this, they are placed in the position of accepting the reason for the observance of the Sabbath as the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. "Confusion worse confounded!"
While the Protestants and Hebrews agree as to the Tenth Commandment, the Catholic version continues with a mutilated arrangement, leaving out vital details of the Biblical text, essential to the understanding of this Commandment. Before turning our attention to an analysis of the ethical, moral and philosophical value of the Commandments, I should like to mention an incident which occurred just before a former mayor of the City of New York, James J. Walker, departed for an extended European trip. The Grand Street Boys' Association held a dinner in his honor. At its conclusion, as a token of the good will and harmony among those present, who comprised Protestants, Jews and Catholics, Supreme Court Justice Edward Riegelman presented to Mr. Walker, on behalf of the association, a golden scroll of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, with the following remark: "This is presented by Hebrews, through a Protestant, to a Catholic as an expression of the plane upon which all hope to stand." If "the plane upon which all hope to stand" is no better than their agreement on the Ten Commandments, then they are all doomed to fall! I apologize for the distraction but it seemed to fit at the time…now back to the Anti-Christ! 10. The saints were to be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. Daniel 7:25 NKJV .... and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7:25 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years. (See also Ezekiel 4:6) The papacy would be supreme in its persecution of the saints for 1260 years. The legally recognized supremacy of the Pope began in 538 AD when the Emperor Justinian elevated the Bishop of Rome to the position of Head of all Churches. This is known as the Edict of Justinian. Adding 1260 years to 538 AD brings us to 1798, which is the year the Pope was deposed when the French General Berthier, under Napoleon, led him into captivity. Napoleon apparently tried to crush the papacy and about eighteen months later the Pope died in exile in Valence, France. This act ended papal power in terms of enforcing papal decrees. The papal system has placed itself in the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and claims to be able to mediate between man and God. The great reformers were all united in their recognition of papal Rome as the antichrist power, and the reformation was the result of this recognition. By separating from Rome, the Bible was made available again to mankind, and many a reformer was willing to die rather than to deny its sacred pages. But the Bible also predicts that this same power will continue to reign until the end and will again enforce its decree contrary to the dictates of God. 11. It shall devour the whole earth Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. Daniel 7:23 Papal Rome was to receive the same supremacy it enjoyed in the Middle Ages over the nations of Europe on an international scale at the end of time. This amazing prophecy is being fulfilled to the letter, and in the corridors of diplomacy and through the resolutions adopted by the world governing bodies, papal standards and decrees will once again be accepted as laws of nations. The leaders of the world have granted Rome the recognition she desires and have hailed her as the "moral superpower." They have credited Rome with bringing communism to an end and religious bodies are accepting papal supremacy in religious affairs. However, Pagan Rome did not fulfill this prophecy to the letter. As seen in the sixth identifying feature, the little horn power was that component arising out of the Roman Empire which was to be different from all the others, and it is this different power which was eventually to devour the whole earth. The prophecy predicts that the little horn would obtain power over all the kings of the world, referring to all the political entities existing at the end of time. 12. It shall reign until the Ancient of Days comes ... until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Daniel 7:22 This is one of the most profound prophecies concerning the antichrist. The antichrist was to arise before 538 AD (the final date for the uprooting of three of the ten initial kingdoms arising out of the Roman Empire), and was to prevail until the Ancient of Days came - a reference to the second coming of Christ and His battle with Satan. No individual could therefore fulfill this prophecy, and only a power could achieve such longevity. Since it is identified as a horn, or a king or kingdom according to the Biblical definition, we must be dealing with a kingdom and its rulers that has been around for more than a millennium and a half. Papal supremacy in the Middle Ages was temporarily suppressed in 1798 when Napoleon invaded Rome, and the pope was taken captive and exiled. Rome lost its sovereignty, but regained it again in 1929, when Mussolini returned the papal states to the papacy. The Bible predicts that the little horn power would again reach the supremacy that it enjoyed in the Middle Ages. The fact that the little horn power was to exist until the Ancient of Days comes makes it impossible for the commonly accepted view that Antiochus Epiphanes, a king from the Selucid Dynasty of Greece who desecrated the temple at Jerusalem, could have been the antichrist. This commonly accepted view of preterists is further made impossible in that Jesus, Paul, and John all speak of the antichrist as a future power. Only the papacy spans the time frame outlined in Daniel 7. 13. Its dominion will be taken away But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. Daniel 7:26 The good news is that we are all acutely aware of is that God will triumph. When Christ returns, this power will be destroyed and God will set up His kingdom which will never be destroyed and in which there will no longer be any persecution. There will be no more sickness and God will wipe away every tear. For more on the Antics of the Catholic Check the Table of Contents |
Now you can easily search the Lords' Witnesses website!
A Personal Letter to all of my Friends and Family
For those who wish to help us spread the "Good News"
|
|
|
