All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church


See Also Archived Blog

Last updated 8-19-2015

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Darwin Fish
Subject: RE: lesbians?
do you believe a born-again follower of Jesus Christ is still under a curse?

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:00 PM
To: Adam ...
Subject: Re: lesbians?

Very much so, not only the curse of Genesis 3, but as it is written,
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)
We are cursed from the womb (Psalm 58:3), “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14), in “captivity to the law of sin” (Romans 7:23) by the curse of God, Who made us sinners (Romans 5:19). We are cursed with a “desperately wicked” heart “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9). We are cursed with thinking all our ways are right, even though none of them are (Isaiah 55:8-9; Psalm 16:2). As it is written,
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes (Proverbs 21:2; see also Proverbs 12:15; 16:2).
Moreover, a believer can be particularly cursed. Read Psalm 88 or the book of Job (etc.).
You may want to read my article entitled, “God Hates Everyone” ( I noticed on your van you have “Jesus loves you.” Do you ever tell people, “Jesus hates you”?

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Darwin Fish
Subject: RE: lesbians?

the last part is not TRUE! God loves people, because they are His creation, but He hates the SIN they are commiting. When Jesus is telling His disciple to go into the world and preach the Gospel, that doesnot mean that His disciples should tell the people that Jesus hates them. How can you fall in love with a God Who is hating you, while in 1 John it is written: HE first loved us? If we meet people who don't know God, and tell them Jesus hates them in stead of telling that Jesus hates SIN, they will never fall in love with Him. YES, we tell them God is hating SIN, but NOT the people themselves.

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:32 PM
and YES, we tell many many people who call themselves 'christians', but don't live according to the Word of God that they are NOT true believers! Concerning this you are very RIGHT!
NOT everyone who calls upon the Name of the Lord or goes to church is per defenition also a TRUE born-again christian. The church is Laodicea-like, lukewarm nowadays!!! most of them they DON't go into the world and preach the gospel so that people have the possibility to get to know Jesus Christ and repent!

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 2:29 PM
To: Adam ...

Subject: Re: lesbians?

Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says,
Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. (Romans 9:13)
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says He hates a “false witness” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says,
The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man. (Psalm 5:6)
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says,
All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more. (Hosea 9:15)
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says,
I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you. (Leviticus 26:30)
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But God says,
The LORD tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalm 11:5)
Adam, you say God doesn’t hate people.
But David inspired by God says,
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
And there is more.
Adam, how can you claim to be a believer when you reject God’s Word?
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 6:06 PM
Subject: Re:
You wrote,
and YES, we tell many many people who call themselves 'christians', but don't live according to the Word of God that they are NOT true believers!
Doesn’t that apply to you, since you reject that God hates people, even though His Word clearly says He does? Isn’t it written,
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. (1 John 2:4-5)?

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 8:51 PM
To: Darwin Fish
Subject: RE: lesbians?
my background is the Finished Work of Christ on the cross. His love for me changed my whole Life and made me decide NOT to live for this satanic worldsystem anymore but to serve Him for the rest of my life.
My wife was an atheist when I met her ten years ago. she was a yoga meditation teacher and was married to a millionaire who had ferrari's and all this things that don't make happy. When I met her she gave up ALL HER RICHES to live and serve Jesus together with me. Jesus brought the sword in her life. She divorced her ex-husband who had different relationships with other women and also gave up the relationship with her 3 daughters. That is what God caused.
We both serve the Lord with all our hearts and have nothing else to live for in this life.
We live our lives every day like it is our last.
Our hope is NOT on people, but only on God.

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:04 PM
Subject: RE:
Titus 1:15Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 To the pure [in heart and conscience] all things are pure, but to the defiled and corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are defiled and polluted.

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:09 PM
To: Adam ...
Subject: Re: lesbians?
You have a false hope. You are still caught in “this satanic worldsystem.” You don’t serve God, not the God of the Bible. You are both adulterers. As it is written,
if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. (Mark 10:12)
whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)
Since you are not in Christ, not in the Truth (John 14:6), your adultery is not forgiven, and you will burn in hell forever for it and everything else you have done (Revelation 21:8). You are “unbelieving” (Revelation 21:8).
You wrote,
we tell many many people who call themselves 'christians', but don't live according to the Word of God that they are NOT true believers!

You “are NOT true believers!”

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RE:
Adultery is pure? Sexual immorality is pure? Rejecting God’s Word is pure? You are not pure. You are a liar (1 John 2:4).

From: Adam ...
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:18 PM
Subject: RE:
don't Judge, unless you will be judged, brother! you are not God and if you believe so, you make the same mistake as satan did to think you are better than me, and anyone else, while God is telling that only God is good and no man is good. you are a piece of dust and so am I.

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: RE:
I am indeed dust, no good, and not God. Nevertheless, I am a spiritual man, and,
he who is spiritual judges all things (1 Corinthians 2:15).
These are not my personal judgments. They are God’s. You are condemned by God, not me. I am simply declaring His judgments (Psalm 119:13).

From: Adam ...
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:36 AM
Subject: RE:
I found out that you spiritual discernment is based on your own interpretatation of the bible. that's dangerous and NOT the fruit of the Holy Spirit. it's evil. You take a verse and place it out of the context, in which it is meant for in that particular situation. that's the same what satan did when he was in the desert while Jesus was Fasting for 40 days.
I have never met you, but I sense that your biblical point of view is not emphesised on grace, but on hating and condemning people in stead of loving them! You play for God and write me that I am not in Christ, so that makes you to condemn me. You even suggest me to tell people that Jesus hates them????????
My amplified bible that I believe in English is the most accurate bible tells to avoid peope like you, who are defiled in their hearts (Titus 1:15) and who are not able to see the Light, but rather like to criticize and to condemn people.
I would advice you to write your own name as wel in your list of false teachers!
Please don't respond anymore. thanks for respecting this. I pray that God may forgive your sins.

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Our Fellow
Subject: Re: RE:
At first I thought to send this to Adam and begin with,
This is no response to Adam. I thought it only right for him to see what I have written to you who are reading these emails. If he doesn’t want to see it, he doesn’t have to read it.
But then I thought,
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words. (Proverbs 23:9)
So, I sent it not to him.
Adam claims,
You take a verse and place it out of the context, . . . .
We often see this claim, but like Adam, no proof is given, nor a single example. That’s typical of false and slanderous (like Satan, Rev. 12:10) accusations. It’s easy to accuse. It’s an entirely other matter to speak with substance and truth. It’s really quite strange that people like Adam expect us (or others) to think there is anything to their words, when they are so empty.
Surely God will not listen to empty talk, nor will the Almighty regard it. (Job 35:13)
No one calls for justice, nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies; they conceive evil and bring forth iniquity. (Isaiah 59:4; see also Isaiah 29:21 “and turn aside the just by empty words.”)
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5:6).
Also, check out the hypocrisy. In a prior email Adam wrote,
we tell many many people who call themselves 'christians', but don't live according to the Word of God that they are NOT true believers!
But, when I write to Adam his own words,
You “are NOT true believers!”
Adam responds with,
don't Judge, unless you will be judged, brother! you are not God . . . .
So, does Adam think he is God? He thinks he can tell others you “are NOT true believers!” but when someone tells him “you ‘are NOT true believers!’” he says,
you make the same mistake as satan did to think you are better than me, and anyone else, . . . .
So, does Adam apply this to himself and think he makes “the same mistake as satan did to think” he is better than “anyone else”? Adam’s hypocrisy is quite profound, don’t you think?
Adam writes,
Please don't respond anymore.
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. (John 3:19-20)

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:36 PM
To: Rich Terry
Subject: Re: exposure
Well, at least you mentioned something specific. Ok, those here who read these emails will, no doubt, be interested in your argument against “GOD IS ALSO FEMALE.” Please quote what I have written and show us from the Word of God how it isn’t true. Thanks (Proverbs 6:23). Or, perhaps you can give us the Scripture/s that says God is not female?

From: Rich Terry
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Darwin Fish
Subject: Re: exposure
No thanks, God doesn't entertain nonsense like doing two diametrically opposed things at the same time, and I'm not going to further address your "female" standard. I watch what I read. I don't read the apocrypha either nor have I read Mao's "Little Red BooK" but I know the former has no authority whatsoever as scripture and the latter is a lie. "We know that no lie is of the truth." As an example, not every new Christian has to be taught from scripture that abortion is a lie, they know that. Any feminine side of God is for Jane Fonda and women's lib, it isn't wanted in this household.
And I don't even know how to classify this next one and "I'm not going there" either.  God does not cause people to sin. He hardens hearts as in the case of Pharaoh, but God has no part in man's sin. Pharaoh alone chose to sin against God. Man is 100% responsible for the sin in the world, God is 100% responsible for grace. There are first and secondary causes for things, "God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth he any man," He can do NO unrighteousness.
Neither did Christ die for every man, woman and child. If He had then He did in vain and His shed blood was ineffectual.
But that's not the true doctrine of the cross. He died in obedience to His Fathers' will in order to meet the righteous requirements of the law. The wages of sin is death and the penalty had to be paid. God's Word cannot return to Him void.

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Rich Terry
Subject: Re: exposure
Terry says,
Any feminine side of God is for Jane Fonda and women's lib, it isn't wanted in this household.
God says,
Say to wisdom, You are my sister, and call understanding your kinswoman (Proverbs 7:4 AKJV).
Terry doesn’t want wisdom in his household.
Indeed, there is no unrighteousness in Him (Psalm 92:15) nor does He tempt (James 1:13). Yet, Terry claims,
God does not cause people to sin.
But, God says,
For God has committed them all to disobedience [sin], that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things [all things includes sin, context “disobedience”], to whom be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12 KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?  (Amos 3:6 KJV)
37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:37-38 KJV)
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9 KJV)
Terry thinks Isaiah was deceived when he wrote,
O LORD, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? (Isaiah 63:17)
But God says,
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. (Romans 9:18)
Hardened hearts sin.
Terry believes David prayed in vain when he prayed,
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men who work iniquity; . . . (Psalm 141:4).
Terry thinks God doesn’t “incline” a “heart to any evil thing” “to practice wicked works,” but David, inspired by God as he wrote (2 Pet. 1:21), knew otherwise. Perhaps, we should discard what God and David have written, and listen to Terry, since he is such a wise man.
Terry claims,
Neither did Christ die for every man, woman and child.
God says,
He is “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)
He “gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6).
He “is the Savior of all men” (1 Timothy 4:10).
He “was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:10)
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)
Terry doesn’t want you to believe the above Scriptures. He can tell us what they really mean, so we don’t believe them. Yes, I know, that’s evil, isn’t it? That’s what hell-bound false teachers do. They deny “the Lord who bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). They deny Jesus, the despotên (as in Revelation 6:10), Who is the Lord God (Colossians 2:9), who “redeemed” (same word as in Revelation 5:9) them. Nevertheless, they have been “made to be caught and destroyed, . . . and will utterly perish in their own corruption (2 Pet. 2:12), even though they were “bought” [redeemed].
Terry argues,
If He had then He did in vain and His shed blood was ineffectual.
God says,
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6)
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:26).
Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15)
And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (1 Corinthians 8:11)
Terry can’t fathom the thought that a “brother” could “perish” “for whom Christ died.”
Who will you believe? God or Terry?

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:55 PM
Subject: questioning the truthfulness of Hebrew roots teaching

Dear Darwin,

A friend sent me this video link recently, and when I watched this man’s (his name is Alan Horvath) teachings on the Sacred Name of God, I became troubled. I am not certain that he is accurately handling (“rightly dividing”) the Word of Truth.  Among other things, he asserts that every time we say "God," "Jesus," "holy," or "church" we are calling upon pagan gods. He asserts that our English word "church," for example, is derived from the Greek goddess "Circe," whereas according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct derivation of the English word "church" is ‘cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce,’ related to Dutch ‘kerk’ and German ‘Kirche,’ based on medieval Greek ‘kurikon,’ from the Greek ‘kuriakon (dōma),’ Lord's (house),  from’ kurios 'master or lord'.

Next, Mr. Horvath touts a Hebraicized version of the Scriptures called the HalleluYah Scriptures. I have never heard of this translation and am not sure it is accurate or trustworthy.

For the benefit of your readers, could you share your assessment of this man’s teachings, at least in regard to this one subject, and if you could, on the whole “Hebrew Roots Movement” from which this teaching seems to spring?  Thank you very, very much.

Most sincerely,

Kaye Victor

Chicago, IL

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: questioning the truthfulness of Hebrew roots teaching
Thank you for the email.
I tried to find a free pdf file online for the Halleluyah Scriptures, so I could search through that text; but I couldn’t find one (except for the book of Matthew). It seems so strange that they don’t offer a free pdf file online, if they really were wanting people to have this information and thought it was so great. Posting a pdf file on an already existing website is quite easy to do and would cost little to nothing. It’s quite obvious for those selling their books that they want the money (people to buy their book) more than they want them to have the information, when they don’t post it online; when they know they could (for free), but choose not to.
In the video at about 7:00 he claims Yahweh has only one name (Yahweh). That’s just not true. For a few examples,
`(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous [Qanna’], is a jealous God), (Exo 34:14)
Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name YAH, And rejoice before Him. (Psa 68:4)
But I am the Yahweh your God, Who divided the sea whose waves roared-- Yahweh of hosts [Yahweh Tseva’ot] is His name. (Isa 51:15)
In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer 23:6)
Therefore I will send you into captivity beyond Damascus," Says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts [Elohay Tseva’ot] (Amo 5:27)
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:13)
There’s even a name no one knows.
His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. (Rev 19:12)
In the translation he espouses, the Halleluyah Scriptures, the Son (Who is Yahweh) is named, Yahushua (e.g. Matthew 1:21), and He also has the name Immanuel (Matthew 1:23). So, there are several names.
In the video at about 8:00 he claims “God” is derived from a term used for Satan, and then goes into “Lord” how it comes from “Baal” (an idol). Yet, Yahweh calls Himself Baal in Nahum 1:2 (NKJV “is furious”; lit. “Baal of fury” or “Lord of fury” or “Owner of fury”), and David calls Yahweh Baal in 2 Samuel 5:20 when he calls the place, Baal Perazim.
“Baal” in Hebrew means “owner” or “lord” or “husband.” It is used for the idol Baal (e.g. Numbers 22:41), and there is more than one. The “Baals” are spoken of (e.g. Judges 2:11) with different names (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:3; Judges 8:33; 2 Kings 1:2-3). It’s also used for different locations (e.g. 1 Chronicles 4:33; Joshua 11:17; 2 Chronicles 26:7; etc.), different men’s names (e.g. 1 Chronicles 5:5; 8:30; Genesis 36:38-39; etc.), for “husband” (e.g. Exodus 21:22), “owner” (e.g. Job 31:39), “lord” (e.g. Numbers 21:28), etc., and sometimes simply translated “men” (e.g. Joshua 24:11; etc. NKJV). One of David’s sons is named, “Bealiah” (1 Chronicles 12:5) which means, “Yah is Baal” or “Yah is Lord.” David also had a son named, “Beeliada” (1 Chronicles 14:7) which means, “Baal knows” or “Lord knows.”
It can be seen in the Hebrew Bible in the use of the word Elohiym (Gods) how it is used for both the true Gods ( and the false Gods, just as our term God is used in English. Thus, similar perverted logic might be used. In other words, someone might argue,
“Since Elohiym is used for false Gods, Elohiym should not be used.”
Even if the term “God” was derived from a term for Satan, that does not dictate it means Satan in English today. Satan is called, “the God of this age,” but that does not mean every time “God” is used, the person means “the God of this age” (Satan). Word meaning depends on usage and context. Likewise, so it is with “Jesus,” etc.. This is simple linguistics, in which he is quite twisted and simple minded.
He claims this “incorrect” word usage is an abomination to God. Thus, since God Himself uses one of these terms for Himself (Baal), he blasphemes God, as he accuses Him of committing an abomination (a sin). He likewise blasphemes David, as he used “Baal” to speak of Yahweh.
Similarly, in his argument against the word “holy,” he argues the Hebrew word “qodesh” should be used instead of “holy.” Basically, he’s claiming it’s sinful to use certain English terms. It’s quite silly. He’s saying English should not be used and Hebrew should be used for certain terms. It’s ridiculous to think, and outside of reality to postulate, that religious terms would not be used in false and perverted religious ways, as well as in proper ways, as the Bible illustrates with “Baal” and “Elohiym.” This scheme also makes it virtually impossible to effectively communicate to the outsider without defining terms time and again.
In the Old Testament the term for temple prostitutes is from the same root word as “qodesh” (the Hebrew word he says should be used). In Deuteronomy 23:17 it says,
There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. (NKJV)
That is more literally,
There shall be no ritual holy one [qedashah] from the daughters of Israel, and there shall be no ritual holy one [qadash] from the sons of Israel.
The first “ritual holy one” is female (in the Hebrew), the second “ritual holy one” is male. In the next verse it speaks of these same people and calls the female a harlot and the male a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:18). It’s talking about temple female and male prostitutes. These same terms are found also in Genesis 38:21 (2x)-22; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; Job 36:14; Hosea 4:14. Using similar perverted logic, one might argue perhaps the word “qodesh” shouldn’t be used either.
He goes through the names of the days of the week and admits there’s no getting around using them, which actually shoots down his argument about the other words. It comes down to what is actually being communicated, not the sound coming out of the mouth, as if there were certain sounds that were evil (as he makes it out to be). Why is it ok to speak the days of the week? Their etymology goes back to pagan gods! This illustrates his error regarding the other English words. Etymology does not necessarily dictate the meaning of a word in present usage, as the days of the week well exemplify.
Moreover, he argues the New Testament was not originally written in Greek but rather Aramaic. It’s amazing how people make claims about the past, when they weren’t there to know (Ecclesiastes 1:11). Yet, the Greek New Testament text does not indicate an original Aramaic text, but rather otherwise. For example, several times the Greek text explains an apparent Aramaic phrase or word, transliterated in Greek in the Greek text and then translated into Greek (e.g. Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 15:34; John 1:42). If the Greek was a translation of an entire Aramaic text (which is what he claims), there would be no reason to make this transliteration and then translated distinction, since the whole entire text would be a translation of an entirely Aramaic text. There would be no reason to distinguish one Aramaic phrase or word from another. It would all be in Aramaic.
Whereas, if the original was written in Greek, and then a statement by Christ (for example) was given in Aramaic, then an Aramaic transliteration and then Greek translation would fit, since the writer was writing in Greek, but giving a phrase or word in Aramaic (transliterated into Greek), and then translating it (giving the meaning) for the Greek reader.
The Hebrew Roots Movement is nothing new. It’s simply the false gospel that Paul addresses in the book of Galatians. They think the law must be kept as a matter of godly living (righteousness).
Finally, as the above illustrates, deception is quit active in our days (2 Timothy 3:1-5; 4:3-4). For
your soul’s sake, please let me encourage you to take a serious look (in the Spirit of Proverbs 2:1-6 & Acts 17:11) at our Statement of Faith (, particularly the intro and first three points. Point “II. God” covers the real Biblical God, which is nothing like what is taught in the churches, but it is clearly the teaching of Scripture; and definitely not what men think (Isaiah 55:8-9). Perhaps, you will see things you’ve never seen or heard of before, and God will give you a heart for His Word. The only way to be saved from hell is to believe what He says (Genesis 15:5-6; Proverbs 13:13; 19:16; Romans 4:3; James 1:21; etc.).

God is saving very few in our days (Luke 13:23-24). May you “receive the love of the truth” that you “might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10; John 14:6 “Truth”).

The question comes up on occasion: When did the new covenant take effect? Hebrews 9:16 says,

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Christ died in time and space once for the sins of mankind (Hebrews 9:26). And indeed, Hebrews 9:16 stands true. Nonetheless, notice the verse just before it.

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:15)

The death of the Mediator of the new covenant redeemed those under the old covenant. Thus, we see the effects of His death were retroactive, and the new covenant Mediator is the Savior of all mankind of all ages (past, present, and future). Moreover, Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). In a sense, “the death of the testator” (Hebrews 9:16) has always been. In eternity He has always been “the Lamb slain” (Rev. 13:8). John the Baptist declared about Christ before Christ died,

Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

Jesus has always been "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Furthermore, we see via Matthew 22:31-32 (John 14:19; Romans 5:17, 21; etc.) the death and resurrection of Christ benefited the godly before Christ came and died and rose. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected (given life) before the Lord was crucified.
Also, when the “Mediator of the new covenant” came upon the scene (John 1:14), we see the new covenant already in effect before His death (in time in space). For example,
So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (Mark 7:18-19)
Under the old covenant all foods were not purified (e.g. Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14; Daniel 1:8; etc.). Under the new covenant, they are all clean (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1-5; Hebrews 13:9; etc.). Some might argue the unclean animals in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are not Biblically considered “food,” but they were (and are) in Genesis 9:3.
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. (Genesis 9:3)
So in conclusion, yes Hebrews 9:17 says,
For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
Yet, even the old covenant was not “in force” via the blood of a man (or men), but “the blood of calves and goats“ (Hebrews 9:19). And indeed, Christ died in time in space, yet He was (and has always been) “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). And, we see the new covenant (at least part of it) go into effect with the coming of the “Mediator of the new covenant” via His statement about food (Mark 7:18-19).

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Definitions
Regarding Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman." , the NIV (not literal, I understand) uses the word "marry", Now the commentary of men (i.e. Vines, Matthew Henry, etc) state that this "touch" refers to a "carnal contact" between a man and a woman - sexually speaking.
Is that just an assertion or is that position justified in the Greek syntax?

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Definitions
It’s the word for touch (ἅπτεσθαι, e.g. Matthew 8:3, 15; 9:20; 2 Corinthians 6:17; etc.), but there is nothing unique about the Greek syntax. The context dictates in what way Paul is speaking. NIV “marry” is bogus.

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 6:46 PM
Subject: Fw: Definitions

I probably should have mentioned the Greek word for “to marry” is used later in the chapter in verse 9, gamêsai (γαμῆσαι), which is the same Greek word used in Matthew 19:10 where the disciples say,

If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.

But this concept (Matthew 19:10) is not what Paul is addressing, specifically, in 1 Corinthians 7:1. It is corollary, as the rest of the chapter reveals. But, it is not the specific subject at hand, when he says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” That is literally true, as Scripture bears witness.

For example, when the Israelites were about to meet God at Mt. Sinai, note what Moses said to the people.

Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives. (Exodus 19:15)

Why would he make this command? This was part of being “sanctified” (holy) in preparation to meet the Lord, as the verse just before it says,

So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives." (Exodus 19:14-15)

In this case of Exodus 19 it is speaking of married men not touching their wives.

Likewise, note the discourse between David and Ahimelech when David was fleeing from Saul and was hungry. Remember, David was married at this point.

And the priest answered David and said, "There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women."
5 Then David answered the priest, and said to him, "Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was sanctified in the vessel this day." (1 Samuel 21:4-5)

Notice the time (three days) is the same amount of time given in Exodus 19 (vs. 11, 15-16), and in both cases it was a matter of holiness before God. I don’t claim to understand all this, except to say; it is clear Scripture portrays,

It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

It should be clear all of these contexts dictate the touching to be in a sexual way, as Paul wrote immediately after 1 Corinthians 7:1,

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)

In other words, nevertheless, go ahead and touch (obviously, sexually), but even after this, he gives a time in which they ought not.

Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:5)

So, the “good for a man not to touch a woman” is found again here in time of fasting and prayer as the couple seeks God, which parallels the holiness before God mentioned above in Exodus 19 and 1 Samuel 21.

1 Corinthians 7:1 (“good for a man not to touch a woman”) was really key for me years ago in my single days. That truth kept me from sin as I realized the wisdom in it for a single man. God has made the male / female attraction quite strong and driven toward greater strength via simple touching of the opposite sex. Having fallen sexually in the past, later in my single years I committed myself to that truth (“good for a man not to touch a woman”) and determined not to touch a woman in a sexual way (hold hands, kiss, etc.) until I was married to her. I was so thankful for that truth, and once I found it, I never sinned again in that way. My wife and I’s first kiss was after the preacher pronounced us husband and wife. And with this start, our physical relationship has been special ever since.

Finally, the NIV doesn’t do well in 1 Corinthians 7 also later in the chapter. You may have seen this before, but this is what I wrote about that in an old blog post:


Someone wrote and asked about the NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. So, here is a note on that:

The NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 is terribly. The NIV translates gamizôn (or ekgamizôn) in verse 38 twice as "marry," but the word for marry here would be gamôn (as e.g. in Luke 16:18), if it were truly the word for marry. The word gamizôn (or ekgamizôn) is the word for being given in marriage, as in Matthew 24:38 and Mark 12:25. In fact, both of these passages have both words (to marry and be given in marriage), so the difference between the two words can be seen in Matthew 24:38 & in Mark 12:25.

Also, the NIV takes great liberty (Proverbs 30:5-6) in verse 36 by adding "he is engaged to." Those words are not there in the Greek, and that is why you don't find them in the KJV, NKJV, or NAS (three far better translations than the NIV).

Likewise, in verse 36 "he ought to marry" is not there either. Likewise, in verse 37 "not to marry" is not there either, but what is there is "keep his virgin." The Greek word for "keep" (têrein) is used. It is not the word for marry, as the NIV indicates.

Therefore, in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 the NIV teaches it is better to defraud (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). To give the promise of marriage (betrothal) and then not to consummate (i.e. not get married) is a serious case of defrauding (anticipation of sex, but then there is none) and breaking one's word (Psalm 15:4).

An exception to this would be if someone came to faith while engaged, and their fiance continued to be an unbeliever. In this case, 2 Corinthians 6:14 would have to be applied, and the betrothal dissolved. (

Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 8:43 AM
Subject: OT Law
Have you ever heard the argument from the pro-homosexual camp that the OT laws against homosexuality are no longer in effect because other laws are not?
For example, it has been said that "if you believe homosexuality is sinful based on OT law, then you must also refrain from shellfish, pork, etc.. You can't pick and choose, after all!".
How would you answer such?  (granted, its obviously a ridiculous argument, just curious what you would say if someone presented you with such, if they haven't already)

Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: OT Law
Leviticus 18 is a good place to go to answer that. There are some laws in the Mosaic covenant (the covenant God made with Israel through Moses) that are unique to that covenant. For example, the food laws (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14) were given in that covenant, but before that no such prohibition existed (Genesis 9:3). Likewise, in the new covenant there is no prohibition on food (Mark 7:19; Romans 14:2-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Hebrews speaks about the old covenant regarding “the law of a fleshly commandment“ (Hebrews 7:16) and “fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10). Leviticus 18 reveals homosexuality is not one of those.
Leviticus 18 lists off several sins, homosexuality being one of them (verse 22), of which the nations around Israel practiced, and they are all condemned for practicing those sins, before the law of Moses was given. After the list of sins the chapter ends with,
24 `Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.
25 `For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.
26 `You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you
27 `(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled),
28 `lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 `For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 `Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.'" (Leviticus 18:24-30)
God calls them abominations. Note Revelation 21:8.
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Abominable people are those who practice abominations and will forever be tormented in the lake of fire, as the Sodomites are presently still “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).
Also, homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture, before the Mosaic covenant (Genesis 13:13; 18:20-19:1-24; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7), in the Mosaic covenant (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), and in the NT (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:10). It is quite clear homosexuality is sin and those who practice it shall not enter the kingdom of God.

Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: December Newsletter
Hi Darwin
Thank you for your kind reply. I will check out the verses you shared - shortly.  :)
Would you be open to my sharing some with you?
Best Wishes

Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: December Newsletter
Of course, please share. God’s Word is good.
By the way, in your first email you wrote,
According to scholars, Jesus was most likely born in September or October - as shepherds would not have been out in the field this late in the year.
The “scholars” are fools (on much more than this). When I lived over there in 88-89 I lived 2 miles from Bethlehem. There were shepherds in the field all year long, including December. The Bedouins (tent dwelling herdsmen) live there 24/7, 365 days of the year.

Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 5:51 PM
Subject: Ur turn to prove my history wrong!
The Sumerian Tablets are 4,500 years old
The Torah is 3313 years old which is the Old Testiment in the bible.
This makes the Sumerian tablets 1187 years older than the Torah. If we take the 2 and compare them we can see how the Priests with their agenda changed the Torah from what really happened by looking at the Sumerian Tablets.
Comparison: The Bible versus the Anunnaki stories
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth and all life on Earth, man and woman, in 7 days resting on the 7th day. The garden of Eden where 4 rivers meet Pishon, Gihon, Tigress, Euphrates.
In the Anunnaki version the Anunnaki Enki lands on Earth with 50 Anunnaki Hero's and established Eridu in the Edin in 7 days making the 7th day a rest day. the Edin where 4 rivers meet. ( Mesopotamia, Iraq )
And God said let us make man in our image and in our likeness. God made Man from the dust of the Earth, and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life and the man came to be a living soul. He called the man Adam
The Birth From The Anunnaki Of (Adamu and TiAmat).First Generation Earth humans. The Anunnaki toiled the Gold mines for 80 shars, over 300,000 years before creating worker helpers in thier image and thier likeness. Ningishzidda ( Enki's son ) engineers Anunnaki male human essence DNA with the oval egg of Homoerectus female in a vesel made from the clay of the Earth (like test tube baby) and inserts it into the womb of Ninmah(Ninharsag). Ninmah gives birth to Adamu. Same thing but for a girl, Enki inserts it into Damkina (Enki's spouse,Alalu's Daughter). Damkina gives birth to Tiamat. ADAMU & TIAMAT the models created in the Anunnaki's image.

Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Ur turn to prove my history wrong!
History is not something that can be proven wrong. It’s something that cannot be proven. As it is written,
There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after. (Ecclesiastes 1:11; 2:16)
The only history that can be proven is the history found in God’s Word, because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). If He says it. It’s true. Man’s history, on the other hand, is as good as toilet paper in a downpour. News papers today have lies and inaccuracies in them, and the history is only one day old. How much more is ancient history subject to the errors of fallen men, whom God has warned us are liars (Romans 3:13).
For example, you claim,
The Sumerian Tablets are 4,500 years old
How do you prove this? You can’t. You can only “prove it” by quoting other men who are just as unreliable, or using some “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV) that men assume is accurate. The problem lies in the fact that none living today were there 4500 years ago, nor do they know for a fact such things even existed 1000 years ago, let alone 4500. They weren’t there to know 1000 years ago either, nor do they know if they are actually some kind of forgery or not. There’s no way to know for sure. But, men trust other men’s word (Jeremiah 17:5) and trust in “what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20 NKJV). No one has lived thousands of years to know such dating methods are truly infallibly accurate over such great lengths of time. The “science” is assumed.
Likewise, you wrote,
The Torah is 3313 years old which is the Old Testiment in the bible.
Here is another claim that cannot be proven. The timeline in Scripture is surely accurate, and some time has gone by; and we are relying on untrustworthy men who tell us a certain amount of time has gone by since then. Says who? Says men who themselves do not know for certain. They claim 2000 years or so have gone by since Christ was born. There is no way to prove that (Ecclesiastes 1:11; 2:16). It’s a claim they make, that most everyone blindly accepts, but there is no honest men anywhere near 2000 years old who could tell us the accuracy of it (Deuteronomy 19:15; John 8:17).
So, the burden of proof is not to prove your history wrong. The burden is on you to prove it true. This you cannot do.

a true church, P. O. Box 130, Moodys, OK 74444