Sis. C. Dove, I agree with this, in theory, but if this is true as you say, about the Bible, why do people feel the need to interpret it and do so, differently? This isn't a question to challenge you, I simply want to understand because there are different variations of the Bible, as you know.
Thank you for asking!
I believe
@Al D is saying that Black Christians believe in ‘a religion’ [Christian religion] that was forced on them and then used to keep them ‘blind’ and doing the White man’s will. And my initial response is that this false religion is based on
false interpretation. So, my quick answer would be as I presented before in another thread conversation with
@Fireman:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20.
But yes, you are right in that there are different variations of the Bible. But even in this thread post Firemen speaks about ‘Faith’ and ‘Spirituality’ AS A BASIS and this is
a definite aspect but not the whole.
My concentration is on script but I also strongly believe in what
firemen is saying as well to be part of the whole. The Bible
SCRIPT is a
vital aspect of Christianity from which ‘religion’ sprung from. And while it may be okay for White people to just have this BLIND FAITH and Spirituality, however, this very aspect of BELIEVING BLINDLY and having FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is what led BLACK CHRISTIANS into believing in this AMERICAN CHRISTIAN FALSE RELIGION.
Bro Al D, doesn’t seem to have a problem with Firemen’s take on this, but he put up this thread that definitely addresses BLACK CHRISTIANS that regards this BLIND FAITH with the basis of being spoon fed. So, to answer your question about ‘INTERPRETATION’:
I believe that it is
NEVER okay for BLACK CHRISTIANS TO just have FAITH WITHOUT WORKS, because that is the process in how we have been deceived. Some people are accepting certain FALSE INTERPRETATIONS as being truth. Just like any other script, the
Bible contents must be CONFIRMED in order to accept as being TRUTH. Some aspects of the Bible are based on spirituality though but
‘as time passed’ a lot of what was written from a past author having inspiration from the Holy Spirit has come to pass and has been confirmed. The
Book of Revelation is one book that caused contention but as time passed, and truth confirmed, it became accepted completely as a
BIBLE CANON. So, I asked for an example of what is meant by ‘anyone’s interpretation of the Bible being truth’ and have not received a confirmed answer, but I will try to give an example:
[1] BIBLE CANONS
This is my FIRST EXAMPLE—Since the time of script, educated people in historical civilizations have written and published books, from ancient Egypt to Rome and etc. And the process of the Bible canons takes on this same process of confirming ‘authorship’ and true content. Bible Canons are books and written works that have been globally accepted by scholars back in the Roman Empire times and then later brought up for review during the AD 1500s and etc. As of today, no one doubts the written works of the witnesses of Jesus Christ that of
Matthew, John Mark, Luke, John, and Peter. But some books written at that time, were not from the Original Hebrews and contained a lot of false information and so, they were not included in the Protestant Bible Canon. So today, the basis for FALSE INTERPRETATION is due to
(1) Slavery and WHITE SUPREMACY and (2) INTENSE HATRED AGAINST the Priesthood, and (3) intense hatred against BLACK NAPPY HEADED MANKIND [ie the term ‘mankind’ includes Black womankind as well!]
[2] Example #2—The BOOKS OF PETER—Most White Supremacist who have benefitted from the enslavement of the Black man, and through slavery spoon fed us about Peter because
they loath Peter more than any of the apostles!!! Why!? Well, for an extremely crucial reason that goes all the way back to the Original Seth. Most White people accept Paul’s writings and the GOSPEL, but
loath Peter’s writings, because ‘the brother broke it down’, but more so, because
INHERITANCE—GENETICS—DNA. BLACKNESS. So today, Black Christians have to confirm based on their being ‘BLACK AFRICAN’ and this is the core of Peter’s books. So let me give a ‘very’ quick break down from the distant past to the present up to and beyond Peter—based on script and research:
[2a] All time lines in the old and new world match up regarding certain historical events and so regarding
(1) 3000s BC, --
NARMER-THE BULL-KING Marks this time span of Black African-typed people in Africa. The mass tomb graves…He warred against the Asiatics.
(2) 2000s BC --was the time period that included the biblical Noah and the flood, but let’s focus on secular scholarly books about ancient Egypt and IMHOTEP—the overthrow of Dynasty 3—the Pyramid Age.
The ART HISTORY of Black African images and script during this time period agrees with the Bible content as well.
(3) 1000s BC--Then let’s look at
the Biblical time of Israel and its’ early KINGS. The Bible states that;
[a] 1100s BC--‘GOD’ chose KING SAUL and he was very tall! It also says that he was
PART-KISH and that means that SAUL matched the similar DNA of that region in that it was inhabited by EHTIOPS (i.e.
Ethiopians—BLACK FACED) Philistines. The term
KISH means
BLACK, ETHIOPIANS, AFRICANS, … the kind of Black Africans that tended to be
tall and very Black skinned. And, again, this matches what the Bible states as well. The Bible goes into a lot of detail though, about how there was a civil war amongst the Hebrews and the
Benjamites were almost wiped out, but intermixed with the people of Kish and this was how
Saul came to be a descendant of Kish on his maternal side! His phenotype matched the phenotype of the very Ethiopians described to be indigenous to that region and in the Philistine forces! And so, if we follow the Bible story about Saul, he was being ‘too friendly’ to the Philistines and Amalakites and this is what angered the Hebrew leaders. The Philistines and the Amalekites allowed
a Color Caste system to set up in their lands at this time. So, even though ‘GOD’ chose Saul, he threw him down later. And then came David;
1000s BC—David was chosen. FAST FORWARD…. David ancestry shows that ‘a white woman’ [ie eastern woman] was part of his recent lineage [i.e. Ruth, his grandmother]. But unlike Saul, David was like ‘a mad man’ when it came to his hatred for White Supremacy. So David tried to persuade the EHTIOPIAN FOOT SOLDIERS to fight against their own oppression!!! But many Black Christians are worshiping, as you say @NNQueen, practicing religion together with White Christians, so they will not read the Bible for themselves. David’s distrust was not against THE PHILISTINES, but as the Bible meticulously states, David did have a problem with ‘the LORDS of the Philistines’ which were WHITE GREEKS. So, the Bible goes on to say that the ‘LORDS OF THE PHILISTINES’ sent David away and back to camp, while they confronted King Saul and the Hebrew force. They did not trust David…. FAST FORWARD, when ‘the Philistines’ heard later that the Hebrew king was now, DAVID after Saul was killed, they knew they were ‘in for a fight’… FAST FORWARD… Later David puts his own son on his throne; SOLOMON;
[c] 900s BC-- SOLOMON who was --- BLACK SKINNED. When Solomon got old, he wrote about his own presence as a Black skinned man and meticulously weaves in the vital importance of GENETICS, DNA, and INHERITANCE that goes all the way back to the NAPPY HEADED ORIGIN. But many Black Christians are believing that it is not important and that it does not matter what color JESUS was and etc. FALSE RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. Yes, Slave teachings stress only one aspect, that we should have BLIND FAITH and ONLY worship GOD in spirit without regarding the Bible script of a physical world, such as, Joseph being forced into a dungeon, the Jews being forced into Babylonian captivity…Israelites being skinned alive by the Assyrians! Pure deception! God checked Moses’ sister for the same issue COLORISM! LOL. Moses married a Black skinned woman. David married a Black skinned woman and other ethnic women of that region such as Abigail. Okay now FAST FORWARD… Let’s fast forward to PETER…
[d] Roman Era—Anno Dominus-- Just as Solomon wrote in prophecy and others, Jesus was not BLACK SKINNED, but he had African traits. He had BUSHY hair. But it was Jesus that named Simon, ‘PETER’, and for a deep reason that goes way back in time when ‘God’ dealt with White Supremacy and Black Self-Hatred. The word-name PETER stems from the word ‘PETROLEUM’—BLACK OIL, and this has been the entire Bible theme. Simon-Peter was BLACK SKINNED and this is one of the reason Jesus’ chose him to be the PETROLEUM—THE ANOINTED ROCK upon which he would set his movement ‘the church’ upon and the gates of ‘White Supremacy’ [hell] would not prevail against!!! It has to do with GENETICS, INHERITANCE, CHOSEN SEED that continued to carry the origins of ADAMAH, the Black African Nappy-headed origin! —The Y-DNA that all modern males stem from!!!
It is so amazing that Black Christians and Blacks, in general, cannot recognize how Europeans have loathed the Apostle Peter and have framed him intensely to be 'SWARTE PEIT'-- of their menstrel show parades, and how the Dutch paint their faces as SWARTE PEIT march in their parades-- an how Nigerians and so many others have campaigned against this evil-- in regards to the very Apostle Peter! LOL! Many Europeans too, are fighting against this age old insult about the Apostle Peter.
And, it was the Protestant Movement that led to the translation into the KJV so, as I said before, there are many non-Black-African humans that fight against White Supremacy and FALSE INTERPRETATION of ancient script as well, more so than many a Black people. But whether it is White people or Black people that support White Supremacy may be a diversion from the reality of it being a phenomenon. There is no variant of INTERPRETATION that concerns the reality of White Supremacy as a content included in the Bible other than FALSE INTERPRETATION. So, Black Christians are not the only ones to have been deceived. Many Blacks support ideologies of White Supremacy but are too busy pointing the finger at Black Christians to recognize their being exploited too.
[3] SCHISMS—vs INTERPRETATIONS—I wonder if many people are misunderstanding the idea of ‘interpretation’ as opposed to ‘schisms’ which the prophets did address in their writings. But the Bible never defined Jesus as being White, with straight-type hair—Michael D’Angelo’s depiction—so if Black Christians say that it does not matter what Jesus looked like, well, that is a sign of practicing a false religion because that would be totally adverse to the very Bible they proclaim that their religion is based upon. So conclusively;
3000s BC—Narmer the Black Bull King—Black African-typed man
2000s BC—Imhotep, the THEBAN PRIESTHOOD in Africa & ------------------ Black African traits
--------------- Noah was written to be ‘PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS’ ----- Black African traits
1900s BC –ABRAM—born in CHALDEA, land of KUSH HAM—God changes his name to Abra-HAM
1000s BC—Middle East -Kings of Israel- SAUL of KISH ------ Chosen by God—Ethiopian-African traits
900s BC—David’s own BLACK son as King of Israel—SOLOMON defines himself as Black African
Anno Dominus—Roman Empire times--- JESUS NAMES Simon—PETER--- BLACK SIMON!
Lol; If Black people and Black Christians do NOT see the Black African theme in the so-called White man’s Bible translations, it may be because they don’t want to see it! LOL. It may be because of being misled, conditioned through false interpretation by the Slave yard teachings but now, after time, it may also be because some Black people just simply blaming White people and not reading and doing their own research.
... please make yourself at home ... 