All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
Last updated 12-31-11
Subject: Re: another question
Subject: Re: another question
They both mean what they say. Satan = adversary. That is the meaning of the word. Satan is called Satan. Peter is called Satan. God is called Satan (Numbers 22:22, 32). King David is called Satan (1 Samuel 29:4). The sons of Zeruiah are called Satan (2 Samuel 19:22 DRB). For a time, for Solomon, there was no Satan (1 Kings 5:4). Hadad is called Satan (1 Kings 11:14). Rezon is called Satan (1 Kings 11:23, 25). They all mean what they say.
"If a believer was to have faith in the coming kingdom with Jesus as its Messiah, then they would of necessity be obliged to perform the works of the law as obedience to that faith." (http://graceambassadors.com/salvation/is-faith-without-works-dead)
James did not believe the same gospel that was given to Paul. (http://graceambassadors.com/salvation/when-can-works-justify)
Of course, James could not have understood this mystery information as the book of James was most likely written before any contact with Paul and the gospel of the grace of God.
It is in “Paul’s writings alone that we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the church” (http://graceambassadors.com/about; found also at the top of the page at http://graceambassadors.com/what-is-mid-acts-pauline-dispensational-right-division with "by Dr. Cyrus I. Scofield")
We believe the authority, instruction, and purpose of the church today is found primarily in Paul’s epistles as revealed by Jesus Christ. (http://www.graceambassadors.com/church/fulldoctrinestatement.pdf)
Instead of saying, "alone," here they say, "primarily." So, their website is duplicitous on this.
Part of Johnson's false gospel is his teaching on baptism. He writes,
While it is clearly understood through a Mid Acts perspective that water baptism has no import in this dispensation it is not the primary point of Mid Acts dispensational right division. (http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/the-main-point-of-mid-acts-doctrine)
So, according to Johnson "water baptism has no import in this dispensation" even though Christ commanded it (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). Peter preached it to both Jews (Acts 2:38) and Gentiles (Acts 10:47-48). And, Paul practiced it both for himself (Acts 9:18; 22:16) and others (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5). All this "has no import" according to Johnson.
Johnson further writes,
Peter’s singular ministry to a Gentile was in Acts 10 to Cornelius after Paul’s conversion, but it is with the gospel of the kingdom. (http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/what-happened-in-mid-acts)
Peter's ministry was not to "a Gentile." It was to Cornelius' "relatives and close friends" (Acts 10:24) and there were "many who had come together" (Acts 10:27). Acts 10:45 says, "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles" (Acts 10:45) and Peter notes it was by him "the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe" (Acts 15:7). This is no different gospel than Paul's. God "made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). Jews and Gentiles are saved "in the same manner." It is the same gospel (Acts 15:7).
Johnson further states,
It also introduces the need for us to ‘rightly divide’ the scriptures when we read them. If we don’t we will fall into trying to reconcile Peter’s kingdom message with Paul’s message of grace.
This is why you may have heard right division referred to as mid-Acts or Pauline dispensational. A significant doctrinal and administrative change began with Paul in the middle of the book of Acts. (ibid.)
No such division is made except in the mind of Johnson and those who follow his folly. Scripture makes no distinction between "Peter's kingdom message" and "Paul's message." They are one and the same, as is the eternal gospel (Job 28:28; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; Acts 10:35; Revelation 14:6-7). For more on that, see www.atruechurch.info/whatmustido.html under V. The Answer.
The mystery revealed to Paul (Ephesians 2:11-3:6) is the same mystery revealed to Peter in Acts 10 & 11 and is specifically articulated in Acts 15:11. That is, "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:6).
Also in their Statement of Faith they write,
Each saved person today is a part of the Body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit despite their denominational or organizational affiliation.
When the bible speaks of the heart, does actually mean the mind? Because I have seen some commentaries say it's the mind, but there are some scientist that have proved that the heart can actually think.
It means what it says, but sometimes translations are inaccurate, particularly on such details. For example, in Genesis 26:35 NKJV says, "grief of mind." The Hebrew more literally says, "grief of spirit." Leviticus 24:12 says, "the mind of the LORD." That is more literally, "the mouth of the LORD." Deuteronomy 18:16 reads, "desire of his mind." It is more literally, "desire of his soul." Deuteronomy 30:1 says, "you call them to mind." It is more literally, "you return to your heart." 1 Samuel 2:35 "in My heart and in My mind" is more literally, "in My heart and in My soul." 2 Samuel 17:8 "enraged in their minds" is more literally, "bitter of soul." 1 Chronicles 12:38 (H39) "one mind" is "one heart." 1 Chronicles 22:7 "in my mind" is more literally, "with my heart." 1 Chronicles 28:9 "with a willing mind" is more literally, "in a willing soul." Nehemiah 4:6 "mind to work" is "heart to work." Job 38:36 "in the mind" is more literally, "in the inward parts" (בַּטֻּחוֹת [batuchot] only also in Psalm 51:6[H8]). Psalm 26:2 "my mind and my heart" is more literally, "my kidneys and my heart." Psalm 31:12 "out of mind" is more literally, "from heart." Psalm 73:21 "in my mind" is more literally, "in my kidneys." Proverbs 23:7 says, "For as he thinks in his heart, so is he." That is more literally, "For as he thinks in his soul, so is he." Isaiah 65:17 & Jeremiah 3:16 "come to mind" are more literally, "come upon heart." Jeremiah 11:20 "testing the mind" is more literally, "testing the kidneys" (likewise Psalm 7:9[H10]). Jeremiah 12:2 "far from their heart" is more literally, "far from their kidneys." Jeremiah 17:10 "test the mind" is more literally, "test the kidneys." Jeremiah 19:5 "come to My mind" is more literally, "come upon My heart." Jeremiah 20:12 "see the mind" is more literally, "see the kidneys." Jeremiah 31:33 "in their minds" is more literally, "in their inward part" (Hebrews 8:10 "in their mind"). Jeremiah 34:11 "afterward they changed their minds" is more literally, "afterward they turned." Jeremiah 51:50 "let Jerusalem come to your mind" is more literally, "let Jerusalem come upon your heart." Lamentations 3:21 "I recall to my mind" is more literally, "I return to my heart." Ezekiel 11:5 "the things that come into your mind" is more literally, "what comes up your spirit." Ezekiel 20:32 "What you have in your mind" is more literally, "what comes up upon your spirit." Ezekiel 38:10 "thoughts will arise in your mind" is more literally, "words [or things] will arise upon your heart." Ezekiel 40:4 "fix your mind" is more literally, "set your heart." Habakkuk 1:11 "Then his mind changes" is more literally, "Then his spirit changes." Acts 14:2 "minds" is more literally, "souls." Philippians 1:27 "one mind" is more literally, "one soul."
"prove that Booth shot Lincoln"
That's what we have and He has preserved it (Psalm 12:6-7).
We don’t know if we have any original texts or not. Again, you have believed what you have been told (Proverbs 14:15).
From: "Ken James" kenjamesrealtor@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:13 PM
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Subject: Missed the mark
I would say if anyone missed the mark it is surely your ministry. Talking about proud you surely are an example of that.
May the Lord have mercy on you in the day of judgement!
From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 8:00 AM
To: Ken James
Subject: Re: Missed the mark
Is there a reason you wrote? Is this a joke of some sort? You told us we are
wrong, but gave no substance to your claim. You gave not a single Scriptural
argument (Jude 3). Do you expect us to be simple-minded and believe whatever
you say (Proverbs 14:15)? Do you really think we should change our ways
because Ken James says so? Do you think you are the standard of truth?
We constantly search the Scriptures (Proverbs 2:1-12) to make sure (2 Peter
1:10) what we speak is always Biblical (Acts 17:11). We have seen and
continue to understand we are proclaiming the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12-13).
Thus, based on what you wrote us, we can only conclude you are antichrist
(anti-scripture) and caught in the "spirit of error" (as 1 John 4:6
declares), since you speak against the Truth (John 14:6) we have seen in the
Bible (John 8:47); and you gave us nothing but your opinion to the contrary
(Psalm 94:11).
You have again accused us of evil without any proof. Anyone can throw out false accusations as you have. We see your kind all the time. They are called slanderers in 2 Timothy 3:3. The Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:3 for "slanderers" is διάβολοι (diaboloi) which is literally, "devils."
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies will not escape. (Proverbs 19:5)
[The following is from a "Peter Darley" who sent a lengthy article arguing for masturbation and against Christianity. For his article, feel free to contact him.]
Hi There
Here's a challenge for you!
I have just read your article on masturbation and I just thought that it would benefit you to grow as individuals by reading my article on the subject (pasted below.) I find it highly unlikely that you will reply to me, although you will impress the hell out of me if you do. As it stands, I see you as an organisation that is committed to sadism, terrorism and hypocrisy and as with all sadists, it is my opinion that you are insufferable cowards, (hence my belief that you will not respond.)
However, you may wish to prove me wrong...
Peter
From: darwin@atruechurch.info
To: summerheat_2000@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Your Masturbation Article
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:00:32 -0600
I did read your article and I drew reference to your predictable reaction in my own: You've been damaged. We're not like that - but you still shouldn't do it...
Don't you think the use of the word 'demonic' is a touch primitive and 'Bronze Age?' It just disturbs me that there are so many credulous people out there who actually take you seriously. I also find your use of the term 'true' church excruciatingly transparent. There are over 30,000 denominations of Christian 'truth' all saying 'we're right and everyone else is wrong.'
You don't have to write the words 'terrorism,' 'hypocrisy' and 'sadists' on your site. Terrorists, hypocrites and sadists almost never view themselves in those terms. You follow a brutally primitive, sadistic book and use an invasive procedure known as 'ministry' to subtly infiltrate the minds of vulnerable, gullible but largely innocent victims. Face it - 'Be a Christian - or burn in hell!' is what you believe and peddle - correct? - WELL THAT'S TERRORISM, no matter how you look at it.
Subject: Re: Your Masturbation Article
You refer to yourself as a “true church” and I found this on your site:
Even though Leviticus 18:19 is in the law, and Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes (Romans 10:4), it nonetheless reveals that sex during menstruation is an abomination to God.
Maybe you should check your Greek – the word end in English is the Greek word telos – and it means GOAL – same word translated GOAL in Ephesians.
Your English translator had an agenda and you just repeated his/her lie – Messiah is the GOAL of the law – not the end – please refer to Matthew 5 – you are teaching against what the Messiah taught.
Thanks
Norman Eby
From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Norman Eby
Subject: Re:
That word is not found in Ephesians. What specific passage do you think it is translated "goal" in?
So, Luke 1:33 should be translated, "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no goal."?
Or, Hebrews 7:3, "having neither beginning of days nor goal of life"?
Sorry dude – 1 Peter 1:9
"receiving the outcome of your faith - the salvation of your souls."
Here’s the thing – you can’t do a word search for the English word – END – and try to make it prove your point. Try the Greek, or better yet the Aramaic or Hebrew and sorry – telos- doesn’t appear in your Hebrew passage – but it works in English, and if that’s enough truth for you – knock yourself out.
I see, though, you ignore the point about what Messiah said in Matthew 5:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So maybe you can say fulfill means “over” – I’m married and when I fulfill my vows, it doesn’t mean I’m not married anymore. Try a search in the Apostolic Writings (NT) for “if you love me, obey my commands” or similar – it’s there a lot.
Too many churches claim Jesus is God – that God never changes – but then preach that God changed in regards to the Torah. You quote Hebrews, which is dealing with the priesthood, but you apply it to the Law. Even Paul in Acts, 20 years later is Torah observant. But the church twists Paul words to further an agenda. Peter warned us in 2 Peter 3
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable (even in the Greek the word is “without Torah (law)”) twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Zechariah says that when Messiah reigns, the Torah will go out from Zion – so, using the church’s logic – Torah is good (God @ Mt Sinai) – Torah is bad (Constantine) – Torah is good (Messiah) – so the choice is to follow a man, with an agenda to mix the holy and the profane, or follow God and His Messiah, Yeshua. I take the latter at their word.
Romans 10:4 and
English Standard Version (ESV)
5The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
TELOS = GOAL - And yet some translations say “end” – I ask why?
Telos does not mean END – translators with an agenda give it that meaning
WITHOUT TORAH - ANOMIA
LOOK AT THE ROOT WORD – 459
Again Matthew 5 – if the Messiah is to be believed – you must adjust your hatred towards His Torah – it is not done away!
Now read “unrighteous” in the NT with the understanding of the root of anomia – and it is defined as “WITHOUT TORAH”
One can easily check the Aramaic and it does not have the Anti-Torah stance of the Pagan Greek text – neither does it have these silly translation issues. The Greek is this way because it translated a Hebrew text – written from a Hebrew mind frame – to a Hebrew audience – to be read in the Hebrew Synagogue.
I went to Bible College and I was never told this – why? - Now you know – what you do with it is up to you.
Norman Eby
Sorry dude but you want to defend a “Greek” text – while you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN ignore the Messiah’s word – whom you say you follow. The reason you ignore them is because you live in disobedience to them. I asked you to comment on the 30+ instances – “if you love Me, obey my commandments” – you didn’t do that either.
You want to argue a word, which when given the definition – in opposition to your belief of what it says – you call me names. That says a lot.
Revelation 12:17 talks about those who follow Yeshua and keep the commandments – you tell people not to – see Matthew 5 again – which you continually ignore. You quote Hebrews 7, when it deals with the priesthood. You speak of a new covenant – try reading it in Jeremiah 31 – it’s with the house of Judah and Israel. The only way we enter into it is through being grafted in (Paul’s words). And once we are grafted in, we are expected to follow the commandments because of our LOVE of God.
You preach a gospel different than Yeshua and His disciples – so before you spout off about truth, read your own Bible.
No response.
From: Lamantia, Joseph
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:16 AM
Subject: Clement Pheonix Fable accusation
If you’re going to accuse someone of something such as your web site suggests, at least have the courtesy to print the entire page and not only the parts of it which try prove your alleged point. The story is a fable and is not being expressed by Clement as a “truth”. Did you read, or print on your web site, the other analogies Clement uses to express the resurrection?? Of course not, because then your point becomes painfully transparent. Add the footnote at the end of chapter 25:
From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:17 AM
To: Lamantia, Joseph
Subject: Clement Pheonix Fable accusation
Thank you. We agree. It is a fable. Please feel free to read our article again. That's our point. It is indeed a fable. The Bible does not teach us to use or promote fables. Such a thing is never depicted as a virtue, but rather a vice. It says to reject fables (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16; www.atruechurch.info/pilgrimsprogress.html). It doesn't teach us to use them for a "good" cause. But, it does warn us false Christians will (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
It doesn't teach us to use them for a "good" cause. But, it does warn us false Christians will (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Your point does not make sense.
Fables and Parables are both fictitious statements. JESUS USED PARABLES: Are you saying He is false Christian?
As defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary:
1fa·ble : noun \ˈfā-bəl\
Definition of FABLE
: a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings
Jesus indeed used parables, which were real life things to parallel spiritual truth. Where did He use a myth (as in Clement's)? That's what a fable is. That's the Greek word translated "fables" (muthous, e.g. 2 Timothy 4:4) which we are to reject. Fables (myths) are not true and are outside of reality.
Are you serious?? If you had any faith in your responses to my emails you would make these PUBLIC on your website and leave it open for people to leave feedback. But you won’t do that because you know your response is ridiculous and at best childish.
You can’t see that a myth and a parable, are both non-truths, and mean the same thing, are you kidding me??
You’re playing with semantics, searching for something to make yourself right which is what Jehova witnesses and all other made up religions do.
Which part of the parable definition did you not understand? It is a fictitious story to make a point. They’re all not true. Myth, legend, parable, fable, they’re all the same there is no truth to them. Because Timothy refers to it as a fable (a non-truth), this means a parable (a non-truth) is not the same thing?
Clement is using the “myth” to explain about something true also, the resurrection, as were his other analogies at the end of chapter 24.
You cannot invalidate the entire document based on what analogy he chose to use.
Please tell me you are not this uneducated that you cannot see that all these equal no truth. And please don’t tell me you can’t see that Clement used this myth to explain to the people of his time who related to such a myth so as to explain the resurrection. The resurrection which is NOT outside of reality.
Subject: Clement Pheonix Fable accusation
The Catholic church which Christ founded is His mouthpiece, the Magisterium through which all Catholics are taught and She has the final word.
The Seed Sower, The Five Talents,, The fig tree, The Samaritan, all parable with no concrete proof of their historicity.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU PUT UP A WEB SITE.
A parable is a story that conveys a moral truth. Historicity is not important in a parable, since the moral truth is the important point.
Parables go by many names. For example, Aesop's Fables are parables. They are called "hypotheticals."
Historicity means historical accuracy, i.e., the events actually occurred as described.
You yourself cannot show any proof whatsoever that any parable in the Bible was or is a true story. The Catholic Church has spoken; the mouthpiece of God.
As Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Most biblical scholars agree that Jesus' parables probably do not have historicity. In other words, there probably never was a vineyard owner who hired people throughout the day and paid them all the same amount in the evening. But the parables do convey moral truths.
YOU ARE NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR, your emails were shown to the people in this office who can’t believe that you can’t see that myth, parable, and fable are all one and the same. Obey the Catholic Church which Jesus came here to establish, adhere to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ who takes the place of Christ himself. The true successor of Saint Peter.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU PUT UP A WEB SITE.
Subject: Clement Pheonix Fable accusation
From: Darwin Fish
To: chrismann3030
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2011 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: purification
|
[We frequently receive these kind of emails in which there is nothing but the person's opinion therein. It's obvious thereby that they think quite highly of themselves and their opinion (Proverbs 18:2). It's evident these people do not stop and realize their words are idle and could be said right back to them, and what has been accomplished? It is the one speaking in accordance to the Word of God who is correct. Throwing out accusations with no proof and/or Biblical contending for the faith (Jude 3) is characteristic of these slanderers (2 Timothy 3:3), and, as those of old (John 8:48), it only fulfills their evil desires against Our Lord and Savior (the Word of God), Jesus Christ (Proverbs 17:11).]
From: Darwin Fish
Subject: Re: It saddens me.
David,
You worked on your email in such a vain endeavor to give us your worthless (Psalm 94:11) opinion with no Scriptural correction (2 Timothy 2:24-26) whatsoever. You can't see how prideful you are in doing so. Your opinion is not what matters. God's Word is what matters (Hebrews 4:12-13). We heed Him. We do not heed men's opinions, for they are futile (Psalm 94:11) and damning (Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 15:8-9). As the fruits of the Spirit are not present in your work, I have a spirit of pity towards you and anyone you might influence. I will pray that you'll recount this pride for the dissipation that is, this wasteful expenditure of energy. And that the God of creation who gave us Jesus Christ will show mercy and grace to you who were unwilling to show it to others, as you have given us nothing Biblical to repent of. Indeed, you have accused us of pride, but given no substance to your accusation.
I pray you will turn to Jesus for your own salvation.
Blessings,
Darwin I know some people who belong to a "church of Christ" that say that the Lord's Supper must be observed every Sunday, and that it is somehow a gross deviation if it is observed any other day (because "it doesn't show anywhere in the Bible where the church observed it on another day"). As I have said in the past, I am no expert on the Bible, but is that concept found anywhere in the Bible or is that something that men had created because of a behavior that was observed (but not commanded) in the book of Acts? Because of a behavior that was observed. Typically, they get that Sunday idea from Acts 20:7 ("on the first day of the week, . . . to break bread"). But, they ignore (or reason away) Acts 2:46 ("daily . . . breaking bread").
Also, to hold them to their own unbiblical standard, in Acts 20 the breaking of bread is not mentioned until midnight or thereafter (Acts 20:7-11, see verse 11). So, if they are to be consistent (which I know they are not), they would have to concede that it should not be done until midnight of the morning of Sunday. In Scripture, a day begins at sunset (e.g. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Leviticus 23:32; Daniel 8:26, 14 ["days" is actually in the Hebrew, "evening and morning"]). Thus, Sunday (the first day of the week) starts, Biblically, on Saturday night. Thus, if they were really "Biblical" with Acts 20:7 as their standard, they would have church on Saturday night and not have the Lord's Supper until midnight or shortly thereafter. After all, "it doesn't show anywhere in the Bible where the church observed it on another day or hour." Why do they stop at the day? That's convenient. Where does the Bible give them the freedom to point out the day, but not the hour? It doesn't. They teach "as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:8-9).
Furthermore, even if they did not understand that a day in the Bible starts at sunset, they would have to concede by their own idea of the starting of a day (that is, at midnight typically in our society), that in Acts 20 the Lord's Supper wasn't until midnight. Either way, they are not celebrating the Lord's Supper as they did in Acts 20. The time given in Acts 20 is midnight or just thereafter. That would dictate a midnight (or shortly thereafter) Lord's Supper service. I haven't heard of any "church of Christ" doing so, and I doubt very seriously they will. But, nonetheless, if they are going to limit themselves to Acts 20, "it doesn't show anywhere in the Bible where the church observed it" at another hour.
The Biblical standard (which is not time specific as they claim) is found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Verse 25 says, "This do, as often as you drink it, . . . ." When is that? As often as you drink it. That's the standard. In Acts we see it every day (2:46) and on Sunday (20:7). False Christians add the concept of "only" to the text of Acts 20:7, but God will prove them to be liars (Proverbs 30:5-6); and we know where "all liars" go (Revelation 21:8 "all liars").
Moreover, there is so much the "church of Christ" does that is not shown "anywhere in the Bible where the church" did it. The "church of Christ" builds church buildings. That is nowhere found in the NT. Not once is it recorded that the church ever built a church building. The church met in already existing buildings (e.g. temple, Acts 2:46; 5:42; school of Tyrannus, Acts 19:9) and in homes (e.g. Acts 5:42; 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2).
Also, they fill their church buildings with items not found in the NT. Just observe a service and note all the things done or present that is nowhere found "anywhere in the Bible where the church" did it. Song books, pens, note pads, microphones, speakers, pews, front stage, pulpit, electricity, lights, tables, chairs, etc.. These are all used in the "worship" of God, but not found "anywhere in the Bible where the church" did it.
Finally, note what is in the NT, but they reject, like women speaking (announcements, testimony, etc., 1 Corinthians 11:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14) and sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; 2 John 9). "The truth was in the Bible. In other words, the Bible, every bit of it, was true " So the truth is in a text that has been translated countless, countless times from one language to another. You know every person who translated the bible from it's beginnings to the NKJV??? So how can you say that it is the word of god? You don't think that there was any reason why people would want to mistranslate for their own gain? Do you even know the history of the NKJV??? So you just chose a newer bible translation, making it all the further from what the original text was. Give me a break man! You're a joke...
"The truth was in the Bible. In other words, the Bible, every bit of it, was true"
That was written with no particular translation in mind.
"So the truth is in a text that has been translated countless, countless times from one language to another."
Most any book of any value "has been translated . . . from one language to another." Translations do not take away from what is translated, unless it is not translated accurately.
"You know every person who translated the bible from it's beginnings to the NKJV???"
No such knowledge is necessary. Those who handled the word of God in the past were wicked (e.g. Jeremiah 2:8; Psalm 147:19-20; Romans 3:1-2; etc.). Nonetheless, God can and does preserve His Word nonetheless (Psalm 12:6-7). You will find out this is so (experientially, at least, Hebrews 4:12-13). I hope you find out before it is too late for your soul.
"So how can you say that it is the word of god?"
You know it is the word of God (John 1:9), but you have become darkened in your understanding (Romans 1:18-20; Ephesians 4:17-19).
"You don't think that there was any reason why people would want to mistranslate for their own gain?"
Of course (1 Timothy 6:3-5), this is one reason God requires Proverbs 2:1-6; Isaiah 55:6-7; John 7:17; Acts 17:27; etc..
"Do you even know the history of the NKJV???"
Yes. I haven't seen any godliness in it, as I have not seen any faithfulness in any translation (including the KJV, www.atruechurch.info/kjv.html) or anyone or anything (besides the Bible) that is called "Christian" or "Jewish" today (Luke 18:8; 2 Timothy 4:3-4).
"So you just chose a newer bible translation, making it all the further from what the original text was."
We do use the NKJV & KJV and look at other translations (LXX, etc.). I also read the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (e.g. www.800howtrue.com/GodsHolyWord.pdf).
"Give me a break man!"
I have given you one. I responded to your insulting email and have loved you as a friend (Proverbs 27:5-6) telling you what you need to hear, not what you may want to hear.
"You're a joke... "
Luke 6:25b
Finally, based on what you have written thus far, I do not expect you to respond with any kind of sense (Ecclesiastes 9:3 "madness"). Nevertheless, I write for your sake, that you might be saved from eternal torment (which is soon to come upon you, Revelation 21:8 "unbelieving"). |