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.
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven
page: 4share:
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Your pride in your own theories is preventing you from facing up to your departure from the truth in your reading of Matthew ch13 v44.
What does that say about your spiritual state?
I told you. "Consult that English teacher". That is my only reply.
Your pride in your own theories is preventing you from facing up to your departure from the truth in your reading of Matthew ch13 v44.
What does that say about your spiritual state?
I told you. "Consult that English teacher". That is my only reply.
a reply to: DISRAELI
I will continue to give you my standard reply to study as the KJV tells your to study and learn from the Holy Ghost, for we are commanded to teach with all readiness to rebuke, reprove and exhort, that being implied from one Christian to another, that is if you are a Christian.
You don't even know the difference between You and Thee, the standard "you" for the replacement of all the "thees" in the newer translations, loses the place where the "you is individual" from the "you that is a group" and the context in these newer translations don't help the reader in identifying it either. In the KJV the "thee is speaking to an individual" (i.e. Paul in Act 9) and the you is to a group. In the newer translation make the thee you in Act 9 broadens to whom it is applied and why you chose to use it because it makes it applicable to all men, but "thee" makes it applicable to any man
I will continue to give you my standard reply to study as the KJV tells your to study and learn from the Holy Ghost, for we are commanded to teach with all readiness to rebuke, reprove and exhort, that being implied from one Christian to another, that is if you are a Christian.
You don't even know the difference between You and Thee, the standard "you" for the replacement of all the "thees" in the newer translations, loses the place where the "you is individual" from the "you that is a group" and the context in these newer translations don't help the reader in identifying it either. In the KJV the "thee is speaking to an individual" (i.e. Paul in Act 9) and the you is to a group. In the newer translation make the thee you in Act 9 broadens to whom it is applied and why you chose to use it because it makes it applicable to all men, but "thee" makes it applicable to any man
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
a reply to: DISRAELI
No, it doesn't it is the truth as simply sen in the text even in the grammar of the day.
I showed you by scriptures that the one who hid is he not the treasure. It is changed in every version today to he hid it. thereby they changed the word of God and you yourself affirm that there is not Inerrant Bible.
If there is not inerrant Bible in English today. And all any man can say is it is inerrant in its originals, something neither you or anyone else has ever seen, then the God of the Bible is a fraud and a liar and so is Jesus Christ.
But if there is an inerrant English Bible then we would be wise to find it and believe it.
So tell me, Is there an Inerrant Bible in English today? if not where can I find an inerrant bible in any language?
No, it doesn't it is the truth as simply sen in the text even in the grammar of the day.
I showed you by scriptures that the one who hid is he not the treasure. It is changed in every version today to he hid it. thereby they changed the word of God and you yourself affirm that there is not Inerrant Bible.
If there is not inerrant Bible in English today. And all any man can say is it is inerrant in its originals, something neither you or anyone else has ever seen, then the God of the Bible is a fraud and a liar and so is Jesus Christ.
But if there is an inerrant English Bible then we would be wise to find it and believe it.
So tell me, Is there an Inerrant Bible in English today? if not where can I find an inerrant bible in any language?
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
You consult an English teacher of the day as to the structure of the sentence first.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
a reply to: ChesterJohn
No point, because you would refuse to believe me when I reported back.
You need to go to someone whose authority you trust on matters of English grammar, so that you can face up to the result.
At the moment, you are departing from the truth on that verse, and your pride is preventing you from facing up to the fact.
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
No point, because you would refuse to believe me when I reported back.
You need to go to someone whose authority you trust on matters of English grammar, so that you can face up to the result.
At the moment, you are departing from the truth on that verse, and your pride is preventing you from facing up to the fact.
Consult that English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44.
a reply to: DISRAELI
OK I did and here it is.
According to English Grammar, the comma separates the phrases. i.e. " ',' he hideth',' " The two commas make this phrase a standalone article with no other pronoun or noun needed to be attached to it. In this case the pronoun "he" is attached to the verb "hideth" thereby being a complete standalone phrase with no need to search any further for a previous pronoun, the search stops at "he". To make it simple, the pronoun that was hid was "he". To skip over the "he" (a pronoun) to the word "treasure" is to ignore the comma and the pronoun of proper English Grammar Structure.
Now, if the translators using the English of 1611 wanted the word "hideth" connected to another previous pronoun other than "he", the word "it" would have been added in the KJV text. Also, there is no "it" in any know piece of Greek manuscript that contains this verse. (There is no complete whole Greek Original anywhere in the world we have enough fragments but out of these there are none that have the word "it" on it.)
Sorry, you're incorrect and the AKJV is correct.
OK I did and here it is.
According to English Grammar, the comma separates the phrases. i.e. " ',' he hideth',' " The two commas make this phrase a standalone article with no other pronoun or noun needed to be attached to it. In this case the pronoun "he" is attached to the verb "hideth" thereby being a complete standalone phrase with no need to search any further for a previous pronoun, the search stops at "he". To make it simple, the pronoun that was hid was "he". To skip over the "he" (a pronoun) to the word "treasure" is to ignore the comma and the pronoun of proper English Grammar Structure.
Now, if the translators using the English of 1611 wanted the word "hideth" connected to another previous pronoun other than "he", the word "it" would have been added in the KJV text. Also, there is no "it" in any know piece of Greek manuscript that contains this verse. (There is no complete whole Greek Original anywhere in the world we have enough fragments but out of these there are none that have the word "it" on it.)
Sorry, you're incorrect and the AKJV is correct.
edit on 23-7-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Now, if the translators using the English of 1611 wanted the word "hideth" connected to another previous pronoun other than "he", the word "it" would have been added in the KJV text.
There was no need to add a pronoun, because they had one already; "the which he hideth".
Any verdict which ignores the function of "the which" is not to be trusted.
I had hoped that you would look for an objective assessor (that is, "objective" in the generally accepted meaning of the word), who would give an honest answer. I don't believe you have succeeded in finding one.
However, your stubborn pride is obviously going to make further progress impossible.
When you criticise my presentations in future, I am never going to forget that a rotten core of untruth exists in at least part of your own teaching.
(I have just deleted a harsher way of putting that)
edit on 23-7-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Of course you an cite that the rules of grammar that you are quoting were universally accepted when the so called "preserved word of your little God" was written right? Further more, when they translated, you can cite that they did not add their own bias?
I await with baited breath neighbour.
Of course you an cite that the rules of grammar that you are quoting were universally accepted when the so called "preserved word of your little God" was written right? Further more, when they translated, you can cite that they did not add their own bias?
I await with baited breath neighbour.
Starr
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ChesterJohn
You can do some work yourself.
Why don't you follow up my suggestion of consulting an English teacher on the grammatical structure of Matthew ch13 v44?
The charge that your teachings are partly based on failure to understand the English language is not going to go away until that has been sorted out.
I mean it. That is my standard reply until you bite that bullet.
"It is hard for you to kick against the pricks".
STAR......it changed in a major way.......The paradigm of salvation.......with Acts
So Jesus was only for Israel....not those heathens....We got Pauline grace....no law, it was only to provoke Israel to jealousy
a reply to: GBP/JPY
So Matthew is in the scripture for us to read but does not apply to us in general.....but we may be Manasas.....
Mathew was for Israel
Brits are Ephraim [
And remember the postponement theoryeditby]edit on 23-7-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
So Matthew is in the scripture for us to read but does not apply to us in general.....but we may be Manasas.....
Mathew was for Israel
Brits are Ephraim [
And remember the postponement theoryeditby]edit on 23-7-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2018 by GBP/JPY
because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DISRAELI
...since they gave up on a preserved word of God and believe no Bible is without error, leaving it to man to preserved Gods words and not God who spoke , wrote and inspired men to speak and write His words.
Matthew 19:22-24 in the KJV makes it just as clear to me that it's the same subject, just different terminologies. This is also a response to your comment to me. Perhaps you should say something about that text instead cause that response seemed to ignore it completely.
Matthew 19:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
How is he not talking about the same subject and equating the 2 different terminologies? Why is it that Mark and Luke use the term "the Kingdom of God" in the first sentence of Jesus to his disciples exactly there where Matthew uses "the kingdom of heaven" (KJV) if it's not the same subject (thing)?
Mark 10:22-24 (KJV)
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:23-25 (KJV)
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
edit on 23-7-2018 by
whereislogic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: whereislogic
The question is not are they the same, but rather why are they using two different terms?
You can't get into the Kingdom of heaven (physcial, and seeing this is a pre-crucifixion teaching it is for Israel alone) without first being a member of the kingdom of God (spiritual). If you not in the kingdom of God you can't be part of the kingdom of Heaven.
But what you are not looking at is that Paul uses Kingdom of God and in every instance it is speaking of a spiritual kingdom not physical. And before Paul only Jews were allowed to get into both the spiritual and the Physical kingdom. Today both Jew and Gentile can get into the kingdom of God, and one day all saved men, Jew or Gentile, during the church age will be in the physical one as well.
The question is not are they the same, but rather why are they using two different terms?
You can't get into the Kingdom of heaven (physcial, and seeing this is a pre-crucifixion teaching it is for Israel alone) without first being a member of the kingdom of God (spiritual). If you not in the kingdom of God you can't be part of the kingdom of Heaven.
But what you are not looking at is that Paul uses Kingdom of God and in every instance it is speaking of a spiritual kingdom not physical. And before Paul only Jews were allowed to get into both the spiritual and the Physical kingdom. Today both Jew and Gentile can get into the kingdom of God, and one day all saved men, Jew or Gentile, during the church age will be in the physical one as well.
a reply to: GBP/JPY
But Paul's Gospel, the gospel of the grace of God, was also for the Jews as well as the Gentiles. It wasn't just limited to Gentiles to provoke them to Jealousy, though that is in part a reason for it. But Jews then and today get saved by grace through faith on Jesus finished work of salvation for all men upon his cross. Today all are saved by the same message. We must be clear on that.
But Paul's Gospel, the gospel of the grace of God, was also for the Jews as well as the Gentiles. It wasn't just limited to Gentiles to provoke them to Jealousy, though that is in part a reason for it. But Jews then and today get saved by grace through faith on Jesus finished work of salvation for all men upon his cross. Today all are saved by the same message. We must be clear on that.
a reply to: DISRAELI
I did not imply there was the word "which" in the verse, my statement was to imply the first pronoun prior to the word "hideth" is "he", that is how you identify that which is hid, whether in 1611 or in 2018. It is clear that the first or closest pronoun prior to to "hideth" is "he" that is the immediate pronoun that is attached to the verb "hideth", no need to go back any further to search for a previous noun or pronoun than that.
If you follow the correct rule of Grammar to connect the nearest pronoun or noun to the word "hideth" it is "he". If you were to go back further to the next pronoun is "man" so it would let you see he hideth man, which is poor English. Then the one before "man" is "field", and then the one before "field" is is "treasure". As it stand between the word "hideth with a following comma and the pronoun treasure are three other pronouns. The Grammatical Rule says we are to attach to the verb "hideth" is the nearest noun or pronoun prior to the word "hideth" which is "he".
To make it "he hideth" the treasure, you need to add another word and it is the word "it", as do all new translations since 1702, and not to mention the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582, or you cold reconstruct the sentence as some newer translations do.
I did not imply there was the word "which" in the verse, my statement was to imply the first pronoun prior to the word "hideth" is "he", that is how you identify that which is hid, whether in 1611 or in 2018. It is clear that the first or closest pronoun prior to to "hideth" is "he" that is the immediate pronoun that is attached to the verb "hideth", no need to go back any further to search for a previous noun or pronoun than that.
If you follow the correct rule of Grammar to connect the nearest pronoun or noun to the word "hideth" it is "he". If you were to go back further to the next pronoun is "man" so it would let you see he hideth man, which is poor English. Then the one before "man" is "field", and then the one before "field" is is "treasure". As it stand between the word "hideth with a following comma and the pronoun treasure are three other pronouns. The Grammatical Rule says we are to attach to the verb "hideth" is the nearest noun or pronoun prior to the word "hideth" which is "he".
To make it "he hideth" the treasure, you need to add another word and it is the word "it", as do all new translations since 1702, and not to mention the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582, or you cold reconstruct the sentence as some newer translations do.
edit on 24-7-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
a reply to: ChesterJohn
"He" is the subject of the verb.
"The which" (clearly visible in the text) is the object of the verb. In modern English, "which" would have been enough.
This is not about differences of translation, this is about the reading of the English language and facing up to things honestly.
"He" is the subject of the verb.
"The which" (clearly visible in the text) is the object of the verb. In modern English, "which" would have been enough.
This is not about differences of translation, this is about the reading of the English language and facing up to things honestly.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic
The question is not are they the same, but rather why are they using two different terms?
Well, I already answered why Matthew uses both terms in the manner that he does at Matthew 19:22-24 when I said:
It's just sometimes called "the Kingdom of heaven" or "the Kingdom of the heavens" because God's Kingdom rules from heaven.
And quoted from the article "Is the Kingdom of God in Your Heart?":
No, God’s Kingdom is not merely a condition in the hearts of Christians. * The Bible identifies its true location by calling it “the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 4:17, King James Version) Consider how the Bible shows it to be a real government that is ruling from heaven.
- God’s Kingdom has rulers, subjects, laws, and a mandate to establish the will of God in heaven and on the earth.—Matthew 6:10; Revelation 5:10.
- ...
Etc. The footnote there btw says:
Many Christian denominations teach that the Kingdom of God is within a person, or in someone’s heart. For example, in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention declared that the Kingdom of God is in part “the reign of God in the heart and life of the individual.” Similarly, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “the Kingdom of God comes by way of a listening heart.”
You say "the question is not are they the same", yet both me and DISRAELI are saying it's the same kingdom or the same thing, yet you are saying:
A rule I have come to follow in studying is that things that are different are not the same. The kingdoms are two different kingdoms that in the not to distant future will be joined into one.
Anyway, my questions to you were specifically about Mt 19:22-24, Mark 10:22-25 and Luke 18:23-25, and they were as follows:
Mt 19:22-24
...
How is he not talking about the same subject and equating the 2 different terminologies? Why is it that Mark and Luke use the term "the Kingdom of God" in the first sentence of Jesus to his disciples exactly there where Matthew uses "the kingdom of heaven" (KJV) if it's not the same subject (thing)?
They may be a bit rhetorical but still I see no need to change them to a question I've already answered. That's not going to help me understand why you can claim they are "two different kingdoms" in spite of those texts (which all describe the same event or account and have Jesus talking about the same subject, the same kingdom). You've still said nothing about those texts specifically and Matthew's usage of both terms when describing the same rich man scenario. Or in response to the other question about Mark and Luke using "kingdom of God" exactly there where Matthew uses "kingdom of heaven"(KJV). How does that not disprove your claim that these are "two different kingdoms"? How does that not substantiate, support or even conclusively prove beyond any reasonable doubt what I and DISRAELI have been saying: that it's the same kingdom? How are these not the right or appropiate questions (more detailed or specific forms of the subject "are they the same?") to you if that's the core of your argument in this thread, that they are not the same kingdom but "two different kingdoms"? In opposition to the core argument of this thread: that it's 2 different terminologies for the same kingdom (if DISRAELI can live with that synopsis of the OP, otherwise, it was the core argument of my comment that you were responding to).
edit on 25-7-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)