It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bart Ehrman?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611

Question: Why is Septuagint not included in KJV sources?

Answer: Because the translators of the KJV knew the Septuagint was filled with errors. Proof? They said so themselves in their preface to the KJV text called the "Translators to the readers". On page 4 and 7 of that preface they said the Septuagint had errors and was not used.

Question: Do you claim Hebrew Masoretic has error?

No, I do not.First of all, I CAN'T read Hebrew so there is no way for me to verify it anyway...and expanding on that thought, WHAT WOULD I USED TO Verify THEM AGAINST?!?!? We have nothing to compare it too. So how do we tell what is right? Well, you trust a filthy man/woman to determine what God's words are. Or, you trust God in providing His words for us down through translations by examining the fruit of the translations (By their fruit you shall know them....right?)

Question: How do you know over 8000 scraps in Textus Receptus are Bible's accounts? How do you differentiate this scraps from non-biblical accounts? Do they contradict each others? Do they have other errors?

Answers: These are the question you need to stick with, these are honest questions that DEMAND an answer from God. Well, like above, you compare the fruits of the texts. The KJV literally changed the world, brought us out of the dark ages of Roman Catholic rule, brought about the creation of America, created the largest missionary movement since the book of Acts, and no one can argue against that. So lets look at the text the KJV used since the KJV has a flawless reputation for being USED of God. Those 8000+ plus manuscript scraps are called the majority text and received text because they do all agree, without contradictions and were used by the earlier church as a whole.

Now, there are copies of the TR that men put together starting in 1633AD, and these compiled copies DO CONTRIDICT each other. For example, Erasmus's copy differs with Beza's copy in over 600 places, and Beza's copy differs with the Stephanus in many places, not to mention the Elzevir brothers copy. The KJV translators primarily used Erasmus's TR text that was published in 1633. But you say the KJV was published in 1611, how can this be?!?!? I'll let you think about for a little bit, the answer is very simple. Similar to where were the "dinosaurs" before the term "dinosaurs" was created.

Do you agree TR is "guess work" much like trying to piece each puzzles together?

You can't verify Hebrew Masoretic but claim there is no errors in KJV, which source is Masoretic and TR?

Do you believe in unicorns? Could you explain this:?



the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article:

The allusions to the "re'em" as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian "rimu," which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns




...It is difficult to say what kind of beast is intended by the original word. The Septuagint translate the word μονοκερως, the unicorn, or one-horned animal; the Vulgate, sometimes, unicornus; and in the text rhinocerotis, by which the rhinoceros, a creature which has its name from the horn on its nose, is supposed to be meant...The creature referred to is either the rhinoceros, some varieties of which have two horns on the nose, or the wild bull, urus, or buffalo; though some think the beast intended is a species of goat; but the rhinoceros seems the most likely. There is literally a monoceros, or unicorn, with one large curled ivory horn growing horizontally out of his snout; but this is not a land animal, it is the modiodan or nurwal, a marine animal of the whale kind, a horn of which is now before me, measuring seven feet four inches; but I believe the rhinoceros is that intended by the sacred writers.
(Clarke's Commentary on the Bible)
biblehub.com...



originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Questions: What are Biblical's verses for editing ( omitting ) God's Word?

Answers: We are not to add of subtract from God's words. But God (working through a man) can add or subtract from them all He wants. Or quote them differently as He wants considering He is the author and the author can use His words as He wants. Example: Habakkuk 2:4 compared to Hebrews 10:38. The word "his" is removed. God did this to show personal faith in an action or work is no longer enough to save you (such as the laws of Moses). Now Faith in a person (Jesus) is required for salvation, not faith in our own works.


Please explain what do you mean by God (working through man). What is the evidence to justify this said man? What is the qualification or merit for this? Surely this man must prove his God's miracles like Jesus, Moses, etc, did? Or are we simply to believe any man to be God ( working through man ) because he translated and interpreted unverified ancient scraps?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question: Why do you believe AKJV is the preserved word of god?

Answer: Simplest question of all: Because God promised to preserve His words for us. And Jesus GAVE us as a command to KEEP HIS WORDS. He must provide the words or He is a irresponsible liar. And I have more respect for people like "Bart" who realize this. Sadly they don't have all the info to allow them to continue to be Bible believers. This is willful ignorance on there part of course, the info is out there, they just close their eyes to it because they don't want to be practical Christians, they want to be celebrity Christians.

Do you agree man is imperfect? As a result, do you agree God ( working through man ) is imperfect? Do you agree God ( working through man ) does not keep his promise to preserve Non-KJV Bible? Do you agree, God ( working through man ) does not follow Jesus's command in translating non-KJV? Do you agree God ( working through man ) is Satan in translating non-KJV and critical texts such the Septuagint or Codex Vaticanus? Do you agree, God ( working through man such as the Pharisees ) was responsible for Jesus's death? Do you agree God ( Working through man ) also responsible for Condemning Origen ( the very work you sourced on ) as Heretical?

So how does God preserve his words when Satan ( working through man ) is also doing the same thing?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Anything else?

I'm not done with Genesis issues. There are many more questions regarding your previous answers. But I'm in a hurry to attend Theology Seminar. So I'll be back later.

edit on 11-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow




1. Do you agree TR is "guess work" much like trying to piece each puzzles together?

2. You can't verify Hebrew Masoretic but claim there is no errors in KJV, which source is Masoretic and TR?

3. Do you believe in unicorns? Could you explain this:?

1. I mis-wrote earlier. Erasmus did not publish a "TR" text, he published his own greek text compiled from the 8000+ scraps and the Old 4th century Latin (plus other evidences, etc, etc.) But Erasmus's greek text was basically a "TR" in every way possible but name. The term "Text Receptus" was not coined till 1633. The KJV used Erasmus's 1527 greek text (4th edition). And to answer your question, it is not guess work if the scraps they used agree with each other in the Majority of places (hints: majority text).

Those places that don't match are either refused or trashed (Like Codex Sinaiticus was, literally in a trash can in a Sinai Monastery, until Teschendorf found the scrap pages and made a forgery to complete the manuscript and pawned it off on Russia for a printing press. Early con-job by a bible scholar. They have been doing it ever since with NIV's, ESV's, NKJV's etc.)

2. No, I can't verify the Masoretic (nor the TR to be honest, I don't know greek either, nor Latin), and you make a great point. However, like I said earlier, I have yet to find a single error in the KJV that cannot be explained perfectly by correct theology (which is the real issue here), by context, or by misunderstanding on the readers (doubters) part.

3. yes, I do, as well as dragons (you can find them in any of the Dinosaur museums). As of today, every animal class on the planet has one-horned variants in them:

Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis)
Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis)
Narwhal (Monodon monoceros)
Unicornfish
Texas unicorn mantis (Phyllovates chlorophaea)
Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
Goblin spiders
Helmeted curassows

and on and on and on......not to mention who knows how many dinosaurs had one horn.




1. Please explain what do you mean by God (working through man). What is the evidence to justify this said man?

2. What is the qualification or merit for this? Surely this man must prove his God's miracles like Jesus, Moses, etc, did? Or are we simply to believe any man to be God ( working through man ) because he translated and interpreted unverified ancient scraps?

1. Evidence:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
And countless examples of this happening are found throughout the Bible. Now to justify him, as you asked, He had to be an apostle in the New Testament to speak forth scripture, and a prophet in the Old Testament to speak the words of God, BUT....any one could WRITE down what they said, which much of the scripture was dictated like this.

2. This is a question in regards to who/what determines the "cannon" of scripture. (Cannon, being the literally term used like "gun barrel straight" of correct doctrine) The determination of cannon was carried out by Christians way back around 100AD (no, not during the Council of Nicea) nor by Eusebius in 315-25 AD contrary to Catholic tradition. The correct books were determined by people like this in the Bible:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

But yeah, it requires faith to believe you have the right books. Thus, back to my original premise: GOD IS THE ONE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE HIS WORDS, and He uses men to do it. Thus faith in God. To doubt there is a perfect Bible is simply to doubt God. A simply sin, but common.




1. Do you agree man is imperfect? As a result, do you agree God ( working through man ) is imperfect?
2. Do you agree God ( working through man ) does not keep his promise to preserve Non-KJV Bible?
3. Do you agree, God ( working through man ) does not follow Jesus's command in translating non-KJV?
4. Do you agree God ( working through man ) is Satan in translating non-KJV and critical texts such the Septuagint or Codex Vaticanus?
5. Do you agree, God ( working through man such as the Pharisees ) was responsible for Jesus's death?
6. Do you agree God ( Working through man ) also responsible for Condemning Origen ( the very work you sourced on ) as Heretical?
7. So how does God preserve his words when Satan ( working through man ) is also doing the same thing?

1. Man is imperfect, but God can work through man perfectly despite man. Imagine for a moment, God loves His words (not "Word" like liberals say to get rid of the literal "w"ords of God) and God values His words ABOVE His very name. Proof:

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

So you tell me, do you really want to stand before God some day and explain why you thought He couldn't preserve His words for you to have??? Don't any of you guys remember this:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The "words" of God are here guys....you just have to believe and receive them (sort of just like salvation is received...)

2. It doesn't matter how many different Bibles there are....they can't all by right if they all disagree. And there can only be ONE right Bible, if they all differ. I simply claim/believe God preserved His words through the ages through the line of texts that the KJV was translated from.

3. As earlier, only one Bible can be right, not two, or three. Only one.

4. yes, Satan is right there helping in the translations of the newer bibles. This has been proven by Gail Riplinger, and many other writers.

5. God did not cause Jesus's death, He allowed it. "God", being Jesus of course. The leadership (Jewish and gentile) wanted Him dead.

6. No one condemns Origen as heretical, most scholars love him to death (because he corrupted the words of God). But true Bible believers know who he is; his kind can be found in this verse:

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Also, keep in mind the above verse. Someone is corrupting the words of God, this verse says so ↑↑↑, who could it be......?

7. Satan is winning the bible corrupting war, but God allows this as well. you see, God always lets us reap what we sow. People wanted to corrupt the scripture to take out things they disagreed with, so God let them cut their own necks. Always remember, the words of God are for OUR BENEFIT, not for God's. The words God gave us teach us how to please Him, and how to live without suffering His wrath. If we decide to ignore that and change His words, God allows it and you have this sort of situation: ↓↓↓

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

But those who want His words, God provides them, as promised. I take God at His "word".. .... Do you?



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




If I’m right they have copies of sermons where the priest was quoting q.. ALOT of the earliest New Testament stuff is from these sermons.. Look at the way the stories between the gospels evolve.. In Mark jesus is clueless to what is happening to him.. he is obviously In shock. Hypothetically he thinks he is the Jewish messiah, but instead of freeing Judea. He is being crucified.. So he screams out “father , father. Why have you forsaken me!” In I think it is Matthew jesus knows perfectly well what is happening, and what will happen to him afterward.. He even tells the criminal hanging next to him not to worry” we will both be in paradise today”.. They are 2 different stories of the same account, and the 2 authors disagree about what happened exactly.. You also see the blame for his death change from mark to John.. in Mark it’s the Romans fault. In John the Jews..


The two authors do not disagree with each other because they recorded different statements and viewpoints. Remember, the authors of the gospels are writing from THEIR viewpoints. And all the accounts taken together do not show a single error at all. I think you guys are getting the term error mixed up with interpretation. An error is something like two numbers not matching in the same historic event from two different accounts. (love refuting these types in the books of Kings and Chronicles).

As for who was at fought for killing Jesus, Mark says Romans like you said, and John says Jews as you said......so bible doubters immediately see an error. Bible believers immediately see the whole story are presented from both perspectives. It was the Romans AND THE Jews fought. The Jews delivered Jesus over to the killers (making them accessory to the crime) and the Romans killed Him. Both equally guilty. AND ALL SUPPOSED ERRORS IN THE GOSPELS can be answered like this.

It is simply believing God and giving HIM the benefit of the doubt. But, then again, who believes God at His word any more?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

It's not about believing God, that's disingenuous.
Many believe God, we just don't think the bible, any bible, written by humans is without some faults
That doesn't mean God lies, isn't perfect, it means man has failed in providing a perfect text

Irrespective, even if the bible was perfect, we stuff it up, hence why we need Jesus

You question others Christianity because of your insecurities, you need the bible to be perfect so you can act all pharisitical, all righteous, all judgemental.
Jesus was perfect, that's all I need

Stop defending the bible, we are called to love others, I don't see that in your replys



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
1. I mis-wrote earlier. Erasmus did not publish a "TR" text, he published his own greek text compiled from the 8000+ scraps and the Old 4th century Latin (plus other evidences, etc, etc.) But Erasmus's greek text was basically a "TR" in every way possible but name. The term "Text Receptus" was not coined till 1633. The KJV used Erasmus's 1527 greek text (4th edition). And to answer your question, it is not guess work if the scraps they used agree with each other in the Majority of places (hints: majority text).

1. Do you agree, Erasmus work on Latin New Testament was partially based on collected St. Jerome's vulgate (common) manuscripts? Do you agree St. Jerome drawn the vulgate from Lucian of Antioch whose theology was associated with controversial Arius and Arianism?
en.m.wikipedia.org...

2. Do you agree, St.Jerome use the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, to produce new Latin translations of the Psalms, the Book of Job, and some other books?

3. Do you agree Erasmus 2nd Edition's Latin New Translation, Novum Testamentum omne, was Martin Luther's Bible major source, leading to Geneva Bible and King James Bible?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
3. yes, I do, as well as dragons (you can find them in any of the Dinosaur museums). As of today, every animal class on the planet has one-horned variants in them:

Don't you think, unicorns, dragons, cocktrice and any other fictional creatures, are too misleading to represent the word of god? Why would KJV not settled with more acceptable scientific names?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
And countless examples of this happening are found throughout the Bible. Now to justify him, as you asked, He had to be an apostle in the New Testament to speak forth scripture, and a prophet in the Old Testament to speak the words of God, BUT....any one could WRITE down what they said, which much of the scripture was dictated like this.

Could you explain this?


Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989).
en.m.wikipedia.org...


As well as this?


Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith"[8] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[9]
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Do you agree, both Erasmus and Martin Luther were neither apostles and prophets? Do you agree both Erasmus and Martin Luther had deliberately wrote something that was not spoken by the apostles and the prophets?

Psalm 139:16 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;
and in thy book all my members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned,
when as yet there was none of them.

Do you agree the above word to be true? Do you agree the Bible regardless of languages, can be corrupted by any writer? Do you agree, we can not prove any man to be "moved by Holy Ghost?" Do you aware faith can be easily be fool by any claims and there is no way to prove it?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
But yeah, it requires faith to believe you have the right books. Thus, back to my original premise: GOD IS THE ONE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE HIS WORDS, and He uses men to do it. Thus faith in God. To doubt there is a perfect Bible is simply to doubt God. A simply sin, but common.

1. Man is imperfect, but God can work through man perfectly despite man. Imagine for a moment, God loves His words (not "Word" like liberals say to get rid of the literal "w"ords of God) and God values His words ABOVE His very name. Proof:

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

So you tell me, do you really want to stand before God some day and explain why you thought He couldn't preserve His words for you to have??? Don't any of you guys remember this:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The "words" of God are here guys....you just have to believe and receive them (sort of just like salvation is received...)


Do you mind explain this?
Jeremiah 23:16
16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

Matthew 16:11-12
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
2. It doesn't matter how many different Bibles there are....they can't all by right if they all disagree. And there can only be ONE right Bible, if they all differ. I simply claim/believe God preserved His words through the ages through the line of texts that the KJV was translated from.

Perhaps there is something else we miss? For example the autograph or the original copy? Or perhaps the original tablet of commandment written by god's own hand ( without working through man )?


originally posted by: [post=23310592]MonarchofBooks1611[/post
7. Satan is winning the bible corrupting war, but God allows this as well. you see, God always lets us reap what we sow. People wanted to corrupt the scripture to take out things they disagreed with, so God let them cut their own necks. Always remember, the words of God are for OUR BENEFIT, not for God's. The words God gave us teach us how to please Him, and how to live without suffering His wrath. If we decide to ignore that and change His words, God allows it and you have this sort of situation: ↓↓↓

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

But those who want His words, God provides them, as promised. I take God at His "word".. .... Do you?

Do you believe God allow new covenant? If you believe God allowed almost all Bible to be corrupted, then why can't you believe God may preserved his words in different way?
edit on 12-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question:
Could you explain this:?

1. GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

2. GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

3. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

4. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Answer:
1. The "Light" is not the Sun, neither visa-versa. The Sun gives FORTH light, but the Sun is not light. Light and Darkness, Day and Night in Gen 1:3-5 are a reference to the forces of good verses evil. God divides these forces because Lucifer went crazy and tried to take over the Universe (i.e Thanos style). So God casts him out with his evil angels (verse 4, God divided the two.) Notice God never created darkness. Darkness by definition is the absence of light, thus the evil ones LEFT the presence of God (LIGHT) and became dim. This is ALL pre-history, pre-Adam. Study this out with a KJV Bible, NOT HEBREW. Study "light" and children of LIGHT verses CHILDREN of darkness.

Do you claim Genesis author(s) did not know how to count days and evenings properly? Do you agree 1 is not mathematically equal to 4?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
2. Don't see any issue here. Other than the fact that God created a special place in Eden where He planted a garden that had trees. What am I missing?

3 & 4. Sadly I still don't see an issue
Are you concerned over the chronological order of things? Chapter 2 is not in chronological order, nor does it need to be, nor is half the movies or books you read. Almost all books/movies jump ahead of the present tense to lay ground work for literary development. This is called "foreshadowing". The Bible is a....book...after all. The Bible also jumps back a lot called "flashbacks" in common speak. There is, nor has there ever been an issue or error here.

Do you claim God is not concern with the accuracy of his Words? Do you claim two "flashbacks" accounts cannot determined which one is man, bird or tree? Surely if they "flashbacks" or "foreshadows" they should still be able to tell which one come first? Even if you time travel back in time of Abraham Lincoln, you should be able to tell Lincoln was shot dead after civil war and not before.

So which one come first? The man, the tree or the bird?

Question About Jesus.

1. Do you claim God's proper name is Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua)?
2. Do you claim God can die?
3. Do you claim God cannot forgive our sin without sacrificing himself?
4. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is God, you have contradicted the many references to "the son of god" in the bible?
5. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is god, you are not making sense with Jesus last word on cross, "Eloi Eloi lambda sabachthani?"
edit on 12-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




It's not about believing God, that's disingenuous. Many believe God, we just don't think the bible, any bible, written by humans is without some faults. That doesn't mean God lies, isn't perfect, it means man has failed in providing a perfect text.

Yes, man would fail in providing a perfect text, even if we were super careful with it. That's why its God's job to preserve His words, and I believe it is through the KJV that we have God's perfect words today. God NEVER promised to preserve His words in all languages, He simply promised to preserve them. When He gave His words in Hebrew, if anyone on the planet wanted to know what the creator God said, he had to learn Hebrew. Same for Greek, same for English today. God gives the words by inspiration and preserves them in the language of His choosing.




Irrespective, even if the bible was perfect, we stuff it up, hence why we need Jesus You question others Christianity because of your insecurities, you need the bible to be perfect so you can act all pharisitical, all righteous, all judgemental. Jesus was perfect, that's all I need Stop defending the bible, we are called to love others, I don't see that in your replys

I am called to "contend for the faith" not to love every body. And I am simply speaking the truth in love. All I am asking from you guys is to take God at His word that He is strong enough to preserve His words perfectly. You guys are asking me to believe God is too weak to preserve them........who is at fought here? And who do you think is making Satan happy with the doubting of God's words....? Without a perfect Bible, nothing in the Bible can be taken as fact, only objective truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

Your simply speaking the truth in love?
No
You are simply acting like a Jewish Pharisee in arrogance, to say you are just speaking the truth is an excuse to not care about people, to steamroll people with arrogance

You are called to contend the faith? Your faith in a book, mine is in The Man christ, yours in papper,
I see no fruit of the Spirit and nothing related to the Sermon on the Mount, nothing in relating to loving God and others, just loving a book

The bible does not say about itself as perfect, nowhere
All authority is given to Jesus and the bible points to Jesus, not itself
Jesus did so many things and a book can't contain them, you see a book, not the Messiah, you are lost

You are no more than a clashing cymbals and a banging gong, you tread carefully, arrogance is destroyed

And Finaly no, I can love and serve the Lord Jeus knowing the bible is not perfect, so your final comments are ludicrous. The bible doesn't have to be perfect and I will not defend it.
Even though to you I am in heresy
edit on 12-4-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please stay on topic and deal with Biblical text evidences and why Bart believes what he does.

Do not devolve into personal attacks against me, it is against the terms and agreements of this forum. Besides, once you attack the speaker instead of what is being spoken, you have lost the argument.

P.s. I'll get with you in a little bit EasternShadow!



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

A) One person says jesus was crucified on the day before Passover, another says it was the day after Passover..

Both can’t be right.. so one or both are obviously wrong..

B) there was no Roman Empire wide census, where everyone was required to go back to their ancestral home of 1000 years ago.. it is just ridiculous. .

C) there are 2 different genealogies for Joseph.. I don’t see why joseph’s Genealogy should matter, but it is there and wrong..


D) in one account of the crucifixion jesus knows what’s going on and is telling everyone else to calm down and in another he is clueless..

E) half the Pauline letters are known forgeries where “his” cristology changes.. the real Paul was appently pretty pro women in the church.. the forgeries are very anti woman.

F) in one an angel tells the deciples not to leave the city And in another they instantly leave the city..

There are no shortage of errors and contradictions..


Now that doesn’t mean there is not still truth there...it just makes all the line by line analysis ridiculous..


If people really wanna know what jesus was like and what he wanted. You go as close to the source and work your way forward..

I have no idea why anyone listens to Paul.. he never even met the guy.. he is the earliest thing we have, but he makes no claims about the life of jesus.. all his info comes from revelations (visions) we don’t believe people who say they have visions today.. why would we believe Paul??


Mark is the earliest accountant of jesus in life. So I think you start there and exclude any later material that disagrees with him, and keep all the material that doesn’t disagree with him.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

But but but. I was only speaking the truth in love...



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


1. Do you agree, Erasmus work on Latin New Testament was partially based on collected St. Jerome's vulgate (common) manuscripts? Do you agree St. Jerome drawn the vulgate from Lucian of Antioch whose theology was associated with controversial Arius and Arianism?


No, I do not. Erasmus used the "Old Latin" which were the true scriptures at the time preserved in Latin. Some knuckle head Pope asked/told/paid? Jerome to create a "NEW" Latin text from the old Latin and his text became the Vulgate.
The Catholic church wanted a new Latin text because the old Latin did not match their theology , thus Satan at work again. THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS today with "NEW" english translations. Do you see what I've been talking about now? The issue is NOT the TEXT. The text has been in agreement with for 1900 years, this is why it is called the "received" text. Because the CHURCH (not catholic) received this text and accepted it as preserved of God.
ALL new bibles use manuscript texts that does not come from the RECEIVED TEXT.
And no, the Old Latin was not derived from the Septuagint. As for Lucian and the Jerome connection, I have no idea (and honestly, I don't really care. I never argue "church fathers". So much of it is pure traditions of men and hearsay that I don't really know who/what to trust. God never said anything about preserving church fathers writings, all I can argue is the Text itself since I have verses to prove that).


2. Do you agree, St.Jerome use the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, to produce new Latin translations of the Psalms, the Book of Job, and some other books?


yes, I have no doubt he did. Because all corrupt bibles stick together in their corrupt manuscripts and evidences they use. But once again, the true Latin text, the Old Latin, never used anything from the Stupid-uagint.


3. Do you agree Erasmus 2nd Edition's Latin New Translation, Novum Testamentum omne, was Martin Luther's Bible major source, leading to Geneva Bible and King James Bible?


"Leading" to it yes, but not the basis for the KJV translation. Erasmus's 4th edition was one of the primary sources used, and the other past english translations were used for references as well. Almost all of this can be read about in the front of a KJV Bible in the preface, and notes to the reader.


Don't you think, unicorns, dragons, cocktrice and any other fictional creatures, are too misleading to represent the word of god? Why would KJV not settled with more acceptable scientific names?


No, not at all, and highly needed. First of all, none of these creatures "technically" have to be real, flesh and blood creatures. I believe they are to a certain degree. Rule of thumb, always take the Bible literal unless its impossible, then take it spiritually. An example: look at the golden statue in the book of Daniel how each section represented something prophetic. Also, look at the descriptions of the Beasts in the book of Revelation. The Anti-Christ is described as a beast (full crazy descriptions) and the false prophet is too. These are not errors, but merely spiritual allegories to explain a true event. This is more of a doctrinal and theological issue than a text issue. We can talk about it if you want, but you know, doctrine issues are always up to the individual interpretation.


Could you explain this?

Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989).


I don't know about any adjusting by Erasmus to confirm to Jerome, but I'll look into it, it should be easy enough to find out, just need to compare some texts.
And I think I said earlier that the "TR" texts put out by the true masters (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc) differs in over 1000 places between these guys, so it only begs to reason that Hodges's text would too (p.s don't trust a word Hodges says, he is a bible corrupter through and through, always casting doubt on the words of God as a stranded habitual practice, and leaving himself as the final authority you should trust).
This is why you MUST compare the fruits of the text. Which text has God USED and BLESSED over and over with millions of souls saved and which the entire missionary movement stems from??? The honoured and blessed KJV Bible and it's underlying TR text. This is not even debatable.


As well as this?

Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith"[8] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[9]


Luther did wrong here in order to try and do right. It is not excusable. In his zeal to prove something he found to be true (that salvation was in a person, Jesus Christ, not in a physical church building and sacraments of the Catholic church) he "jumped the shark" and added to God's words. Explanation? He simply sinned. Similar to the heretical antisemitism sin he had. But I still thank God for him, he was a giant amoung men.
But he tried to "pull a Paul" by adding one word to prove a doctrine that was available else where without needing to change the underlying text. Paul did this in Hak 2:4 and Rom 1:17. Paul of course is allowed to as he was speaking what God put in his mind. This is called inspiration, and the author of the book (the Holy Spirit) can quote His own work however He wants too (this requires faith to believe though, and some people don't have that much faith in God)
As to Ps 139:16 you posted, I agree all mankind is imperfect, but that's what makes the miracle of Biblical preservation so amazing; that God can use imperfect vessels to produce a perfect work. And God is the supervisor over the work (this is the concept NONE of you guys understand) and if God sees something out of place, He steps in and has a man change it back to the correct reading; i.e. Erasmus, KJV translators, etc. Comment on this please.

Want to know the truth? All the problems arise from biblical "scholars" who make there living from correcting God's words are simply JEALOUS of people God truly used to preserve His words. And they simply want to be like them, and will do whatever is needed to create errors in order for them to fix the errors to justify their useless jobs. Never trust bible scholars...They literally are the Pharisees, Sadducees, Lawyers, and SCRIBES of Jesus's day...



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow



Do you mind explain this?
Jeremiah 23:16
16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

Matthew 16:11-12
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.


That verse in Jeremiah & Matthew is exactly what I have been warning about!!!!! you cannot trust professional bible correcters. They are in their position of a scholar for one giant reason, they have FAILED at practical Christianity.
If they had to lead a soul to Jesus Christ they would pass out. If confronted with and practical problem related to Christian life and ministry they would hide under their multiple earned degrees and leave the "dirty" work to people like me who are in the trenches working with people with PURE CONFIDENCE that the Bible I am using are the very words of God that will work miracles in their lives.
Since scholars do not believe in a perfect book, ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO THEM! Thus all motivation to minister to people is relegated to the size of their "offerings" (pay check). Look at the FRUIT of the translations and work. Which one did God USE?!?!?! God will not use a dirty vessel, nor would you use a dirty cup to drink out of. God uses what is pure and clean, the same with the KJV. I dare anyone here to refute that statement. Good luck. (and I'm not being mean, I seriously mean it, can this statement be proven false in light of church history since 1611AD?)



originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
2. It doesn't matter how many different Bibles there are....they can't all by right if they all disagree. And there can only be ONE right Bible, if they all differ. I simply claim/believe God preserved His words through the ages through the line of texts that the KJV was translated from.

Perhaps there is something else we miss? For example the autograph or the original copy? Or perhaps the original tablet of commandment written by god's own hand ( without working through man )?

This statement would be wonderfully true...but, as you know, there are no autographs, anywhere. So we cannot even speculate on this premise. It would makes things much easier though wouldn't it
(God did this on purpose by the way, because of stuff like Judges 8:27)
God does not want our current faith to be in something physical (autographs are physical, so are tablets) He wants our faith to be IN HIM. Thus my position....I trust God (faith) that He provides His error free words to us today. Insanely enough, most Christians don't for some devious reason.



Do you believe God allow new covenant? If you believe God allowed almost all Bible to be corrupted, then why can't you believe God may preserved his words in different way?

Well, there are only two ways to preserve something....the right way and the wrong way...right? Examine the fruit of the texts and you will see which one is right. Now...I think I will post some questions for you guys in a little bit. They will be one line, simple questions. And I will be able to tell where your allegiances lay with the answers you provide.

Are you with Jehudi is Jeremiah 36:23?

Jeremiah 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Or are you with the church of Philadelphia in which God said:

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Question About Jesus.
1. Do you claim God's proper name is Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua)?
2. Do you claim God can die?
3. Do you claim God cannot forgive our sin without sacrificing himself?
4. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is God, you have contradicted the many references to "the son of god" in the bible?
5. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is god, you are not making sense with Jesus last word on cross, "Eloi Eloi lambda sabachthani?"


I am going to skip the genesis questions as I have already answered what I understand to be the question. We can go back to them later but I'll be perfectly honest, I do not see what the error is. Maybe someone else can re-word the question, or something.

1. yes, in the Greek language God's proper mankind name is Jesus. God did become a MAN after all, and men have names. God's man name was Jesus. The name the angels call Him is something I don't care about. I use the name of a man, from a man (me). When I get to Heaven I will call Him by whatever He wants me too. These are non-arguments amoung Christian whiners. When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him. Even a blood filled moan mentioned to Heaven is enough for God. Semantics do not matter to God in relation to people praying to Him for help....He is not that petty....we are though apparently.

2. No, God can not die, but a body of flesh prepared for God to dwell in can die, hence Jesus's body (1 Tim 3:16)

3 . No, God can forgive all sins without sacrificing Himself, but that doesn't mean the sins are gone ( Exodus 34:7 look it up!!! KJV of course), it just means they are forgiven....the price or punishment for the sins remain, and someone has to pay for them. Animals took the price for sin (death) in the Old Testament, but God Himself provided Himself as a Lamb (Gen 22:8) for us, one sacrifices to cleanse and pay for all sins of everyone; Elect and non-elect...all we have to do is accept His payment for our sin.

4. Jesus is the one who claimed to be God. Not me. As to why you (and me for that matter) can't understand the obvious distinction between Jesus and the Father in the gospels is another large topic. As the "Godhead" the Son, separated Himself from the Father to become a man and went to earth to die for man. The "Son" will re-join with the Father at the end of the Millennium possibly according to:

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

5. When Jesus cried my God why hast they forsaken me, it was the fulfilling of prophecy, as well as a picture of a man who was suffering the payment for sin in Hell. Jesus took upon us the penalty for sin and also took the pain and SEPARATION from God that comes with being a lost sinner. All the world's sins were poured out upon Jesus (hence the prayer of Jesus, "let this cup pass from me" the cup of sins of the world and the wrath that would follow, Jesus drank it in full, to the dregs). God could no longer look on Jesus because He was covered with OUR SINS:

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

This is the meaning of the cry from the cross. It is a terribly beautiful picture of the price it cost to pay for our sins....it is not an error, and God help the poor souls who have to stand before God and claim this most sad and beautiful doctrinal passage was wrong....



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow



Question: Why is Septuagint not included in KJV sources?

Answer: Because the translators of the KJV knew the Septuagint was filled with errors. Proof? They said so themselves in their preface to the KJV text called the "Translators to the readers". On page 4 and 7 of that preface they said the Septuagint had errors and was not used.

Not true at all. The apocrypha was almost entirely found in Greek MSS. Nothing could be admitted in Hebrew canon if not preserved in Hebrew. This caused the apocrypha to be separated from the Masoretic MSS. even though referenced by the scholars as literature only.

The apocrypha was accepted in the Geneva bible and the first 1611 KJV bibles up to 1826 when the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned its removal from the KJV bible. The petition was primarily in opposition to Catholicism. It was removed in 1826 and now reinstated in 1964 and 1966. The reason it is now not in most bibles is that of the publishers preference of cost and not by authorization. The Masoretic MSS with the apocrypha MSS is available in the Orthodox Study Bible.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




The apocrypha was accepted in the Geneva bible and the first 1611 KJV bibles up to 1826

A little clarification on this statement: The Apocrypha was NOT included in either of these Bibles. It was "inserted" in between the Old and New Testaments, but it was not PART of the scriptures, or the words of God. It was there for added reading on the intertestamental period or the years of silence from God until Jesus came. But no, the apocrypha was not part of the protestant Bible.

In the Catholic bibles, the apocrypha is literally mixed in with each Testament, thereby making it look like the apocrypha books are part of the Christian "cannon". But the KJV translators knew they were not part of the accepted cannon and even SAID SO themselves. So they placed all the books of the apocrypha in the middle, showing that they were not part of EITHER testament.

And yes, I have read the apocrypha books....there is a reason why they were not included in the cannon...a very obvious reason(s).



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
No, I do not. Erasmus used the "Old Latin" which were the true scriptures at the time preserved in Latin. Some knuckle head Pope asked/told/paid? Jerome to create a "NEW" Latin text from the old Latin and his text became the Vulgate.

By "Old Latin, I assume you mean, Vetus Latina?
So you disagree that Erasmus used Latin Vulgate by St.Jerome. Perhaps you could explain this?


Unfortunately, this manuscript was not complete, it lacked the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Instead of delaying the publication, on account of the search for another manuscript, he decided to translate the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. He used an inferior manuscript of Vulgate with textual variant libro vitae (book of life) instead ligno vitae (tree of life) in Rev 22:19.[7] Even in other parts of the Book of Revelation and other books of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced self-created Greek text material taken from the Vulgate. F. H. A. Scrivener remarked, that in Rev 17:4 he created a new Greek word: ἀκαθαρτητος (instead τὰ ἀκάθαρτα). There is no such word in Greek language as ακαθαρτητος.[8] In Rev 17:8 he used καιπερ εστιν (and yet is) instead of και παρεσται (and shall come). In Acts 9:6 the question that Paul asks at the time of his conversion on the Damascus road, Τρέμων τε καὶ θαμβὣν εἲπεν κύριε τί μέ θέλεις ποιῆσαι ("And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will you have me to do?") was incorporated from the Vulgate.[9][n 2]
en.m.wikipedia.org...

It's appear not only Erasmus used the vulgate, he also occasionally "introduced self-created Greek text", as proven by F.H.A Scrivener. What is your opinion?



originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The issue is NOT the TEXT. The text has been in agreement with for 1900 years, this is why it is called the "received" text. Because the CHURCH (not catholic) received this text and accepted it as preserved of God.

Do you mean Vetus Latina or Textus Receptus? Vetus Latina was replaced by standardised Jerome's vulgate after the Council of Trent. Textus Receptus didn't exist until first publication in 1516.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
And no, the Old Latin was not derived from the Septuagint.

Do you claim LXX ( Septuagint ) wasn't the first translation from Hebrew Tanakh? Could you provide evidence that Vetus Latina or "Old Latin" was not sourced on LXX?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
As for Lucian and the Jerome connection, I have no idea (and honestly, I don't really care. I never argue "church fathers". So much of it is pure traditions of men and hearsay that I don't really know who/what to trust. God never said anything about preserving church fathers writings, all I can argue is the Text itself since I have verses to prove that).

Who else did the translations beside the Church Fathers? Do you think the apostles would translated Classical Archaic Hebrew ( The language of Canaanites ) or Aramaic in the Old Testament?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I don't know about any adjusting by Erasmus to confirm to Jerome, but I'll look into it, it should be easy enough to find out, just need to compare some texts.
And I think I said earlier that the "TR" texts put out by the true masters (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc) differs in over 1000 places between these guys,

Do you admit there're differences in Textus Receptus?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Luther did wrong here in order to try and do right. It is not excusable. In his zeal to prove something he found to be true (that salvation was in a person, Jesus Christ, not in a physical church building and sacraments of the Catholic church) he "jumped the shark" and added to God's words. Explanation? He simply sinned. Similar to the heretical antisemitism sin he had.

Thank you for being honest.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
As to Ps 139:16 you posted, I agree all mankind is imperfect, but that's what makes the miracle of Biblical preservation so amazing; that God can use imperfect vessels to produce a perfect work. And God is the supervisor over the work (this is the concept NONE of you guys understand) and if God sees something out of place, He steps in and has a man change it back to the correct reading; i.e. Erasmus, KJV translators, etc. Comment on this please.


Do you agree, God did not dictate what form and language should he preserved his word? Do you agree, verbal transmission was god's other mean to preserve his messages? Do you agree what are we doing right now is another form of god preserving his word? Do you agree the Bible was meant to be corrupted so that we could discuss, share, debate, justify and come to conclusion for more than 2000 years?

Do you agree, if the Bible is perfect, neither you and Raggedyman, would be stepping in Theology Forum today?
edit on 13-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question:
Do you mind explain this?
Jeremiah 23:16
16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

Matthew 16:11-12
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Answer:
That verse in Jeremiah & Matthew is exactly what I have been warning about!!!!! you cannot trust professional bible correcters. They are in their position of a scholar for one giant reason, they have FAILED at practical Christianity.
If they had to lead a soul to Jesus Christ they would pass out. If confronted with and practical problem related to Christian life and ministry they would hide under their multiple earned degrees and leave the "dirty" work to people like me who are in the trenches working with people with PURE CONFIDENCE that the Bible I am using are the very words of God that will work miracles in their lives.
Since scholars do not believe in a perfect book, ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO THEM! Thus all motivation to minister to people is relegated to the size of their "offerings" (pay check). Look at the FRUIT of the translations and work. Which one did God USE?!?!?! God will not use a dirty vessel, nor would you use a dirty cup to drink out of. God uses what is pure and clean, the same with the KJV. I dare anyone here to refute that statement. Good luck. (and I'm not being mean, I seriously mean it, can this statement be proven false in light of church history since 1611AD?)

Thank you for your answer.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
This statement would be wonderfully true...but, as you know, there are no autographs, anywhere. So we cannot even speculate on this premise. It would makes things much easier though wouldn't it
(God did this on purpose by the way, because of stuff like Judges 8:27)
God does not want our current faith to be in something physical (autographs are physical, so are tablets) He wants our faith to be IN HIM. Thus my position....I trust God (faith) that He provides His error free words to us today. Insanely enough, most Christians don't for some devious reason.

God warned us through Jeremiah 23:16 and Matthew 16:11-12, but He ask us to trust without the autograph? Don't you think it is a contradiction?


originally posted by: [post=23314994]MonarchofBooks1611[/post
Well, there are only two ways to preserve something....the right way and the wrong way...right? Examine the fruit of the texts and you will see which one is right. Now...I think I will post some questions for you guys in a little bit. They will be one line, simple questions. And I will be able to tell where your allegiances lay with the answers you provide.

Are you with Jehudi is Jeremiah 36:23?

Jeremiah 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Or are you with the church of Philadelphia in which God said:

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

You didn't answer my question. So I re-ask again.

If you believe God allowed almost all Bible to be corrupted, then why can't you believe God may preserved his words in different way?



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I am going to skip the genesis questions as I have already answered what I understand to be the question. We can go back to them later but I'll be perfectly honest, I do not see what the error is. Maybe someone else can re-word the question, or something.

My previous question wasn't about the meaning of light and darkness, either literal or metaphor.

My questions was about the contradiction between the number of days and evenings.
So which one is true, god created days and evenings in the first day or in the fourth days?
Only one statement can be true. Not both of them.

My other question was about the contradiction in chronical order. You have not answer anything.
Which one come first, the man, the tree, the animal or the bird?
Same here. Only one statement can be true.

edit on 13-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question About Jesus.

1. Do you claim God's proper name is Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua)?
2. Do you claim God can die?
3. Do you claim God cannot forgive our sin without sacrificing himself?
4. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is God, you have contradicted the many references to "the son of god" in the bible?
5. Do you aware, by claiming Jesus is god, you are not making sense with Jesus last word on cross, "Eloi Eloi lambda sabachthani?"

Answer:
1. yes, in the Greek language God's proper mankind name is Jesus.

Do you mean thisἸησοῦς, οῦ,? It's Iésous in Greek.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God did become a MAN after all, and men have names. God's man name was Jesus. The name the angels call Him is something I don't care about. I use the name of a man, from a man (me).

Do you ignore Exodus 3:14?

Do you agree, the word LORD in capital English letters refer to Hebrew text, יהוה(YHWH) and Greek text κύριος, ( kýrios )? Do you aware none of ancient texts identified and associated Greek ησοῦς, ( Iésous, Jesus ) as יהוה in Hebrew or κύριος ( Lord ) in Greek text?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him.

Do you have any Bible verse to prove it?

This is Hebrew OT WLC Isaiah 42:8
אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃
It means god does not share his glory.

As you can see from the text, Hebrew did not use LORD as in English. It used יהוה, YHWH. It is mentioned 6800 times in the Bible.
www.agapebiblestudy.com...
But you can't see them because English edition change almost all of them to LORD, which you now interpret as ישוע ( Yeshua or Jesus ).


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Even a blood filled moan mentioned to Heaven is enough for God. Semantics do not matter to God in relation to people praying to Him for help....He is not that petty....we are though apparently.

If Semantics were wrongly interpreted to fabricate false claim, do you honestly believe God would not be that petty?


"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
2. No, God can not die, but a body of flesh prepared for God to dwell in can die, hence Jesus's body (1 Tim 3:16)

If god cannot die, then crucifixion and ressurection were lies or pointless. Don't you think so?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
3 . No, God can forgive all sins without sacrificing Himself, but that doesn't mean the sins are gone ( Exodus 34:7 look it up!!! KJV of course), it just means they are forgiven....the price or punishment for the sins remain, and someone has to pay for them. Animals took the price for sin (death) in the Old Testament, but God Himself provided Himself as a Lamb (Gen 22:8) for us, one sacrifices to cleanse and pay for all sins of everyone; Elect and non-elect...all we have to do is accept His payment for our sin.

But you claim god cannot die. By becoming flesh, god is feigning death or deceiving. Do you claim dead human god is deceiving us into believing salvation?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
4. Jesus is the one who claimed to be God. Not me. As to why you (and me for that matter) can't understand the obvious distinction between Jesus and the Father in the gospels is another large topic.

Jesus made a lot of parables and allegories, did he not? There are a lot of bible verses but none has sufficient evidences to support the believe that Jesus is god. Do you agree, the doctrine of Jesus as God is not universally agreed even among the various christian denominations? Do you agree Jesus did not come to teach us? Do you believe this;?

John 16:7-11 KJV
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
As the "Godhead" the Son, separated Himself from the Father to become a man and went to earth to die for man.

Do you agree "godhead" did not exist in "Old Latin", Masoretic, Textus Receptus as well in Hebrew Tanakh? Do you agree the term "godhere" was coined by John Wycliffe to translate three different Koine Greek words?
en.m.wikipedia.org...


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
5. When Jesus cried my God why hast they forsaken me, it was the fulfilling of prophecy, as well as a picture of a man who was suffering the payment for sin in Hell. Jesus took upon us the penalty for sin and also took the pain and SEPARATION from God that comes with being a lost sinner. All the world's sins were poured out upon Jesus (hence the prayer of Jesus, "let this cup pass from me" the cup of sins of the world and the wrath that would follow, Jesus drank it in full, to the dregs).

You claim Jesus is God. Please explain what do you mean by "SEPARATION from God".


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God could no longer look on Jesus because He was covered with OUR SINS:

How can God "could no longer look on Jesus" when God is Jesus?


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

This is the meaning of the cry from the cross. It is a terribly beautiful picture of the price it cost to pay for our sins....it is not an error, and God help the poor souls who have to stand before God and claim this most sad and beautiful doctrinal passage was wrong....

But you claim god cannot dies. Therefore, all this suffering was orchestrated hoax to deceit us into believing salvation. The sacrificial lamb was not sacrificed as intended. The sin had not been paid by blood. There was no ressurection because God never die. Do you aware such implication if God did not sacrificing himself as he promised? Surely you can't expect Christian to trust in salvation when God did not deliver his promise, because he is still alive and well in heaven?
edit on 14-4-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join