CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.
Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.
Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
However, you have been hiding it ever since I started discussing anything with you. You have never said you believe in the Oneness doctrine. You ALWAYS say you are a trinitarian.I will not hide the fact that I believe in Oneness doctrine as I understand it. It should be obvious since I am also promoting elsewhere baptism in Jesus' name.
The Apostles' Creed is acceptable since it does not teach oneness or trinity. The Athanasian Creed is a man made invention of the sixth century that Athanasius never wrote.However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.
You are forced to say it is not perfect truth because it destroys your belief.The Trinity shield cannot portray it accurately because it is a construct that requires that if something is true one way, then it must also be true the other. In other words, since the Father is not the Son, it concludes that the Son is not the Father. So it breaks down from being perfectly the truth because it is a picture of what someone thinks God is. And God cannot be shown in a picture.
Here you say "the Father is not the Son", but you previously said "the Father became the Son". If "the Son is the Father" as you say, then the Father is the Son as well. Your doctrine is so twisted and convoluted that no one can understand it. Why? Because it emanates from your natural mind. It is the natural mind that builds doctrines on English translations without checking what the original texts from which the translation is made actually say. It is also the natural mind that claims only the KJV is the correct translation of all the English translations which vary from each other.However, it can be shown from scripture (to someone who is not thinking with the natural mind) that the Son is the Father although the Father is not the Son. As a matter of fact, the natural mind rejects the testimony of scripture and attempts to change the words of scripture (more than once) in order to reject the clear testimony of Isaiah 9:6.
However, you have been hiding it ever since I started discussing anything with you. You have never said you believe in the Oneness doctrine. You ALWAYS say you are a trinitarian.
.However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.
The Apostles' Creed is acceptable since it does not teach oneness or trinity. The Athanasian Creed is a man made invention of the sixth century that Athanasius never wrote.
You are forced to say it is not perfect truth because it destroys your belief.
Your doctrine is so twisted and convoluted that no one can understand it. Why? Because it emanates from your natural mind.
It is the natural mind that builds doctrines on English translations without checking what the original texts from which the translation is made actually say. It is also the natural mind that claims only the KJV is the correct translation of all the English translations which vary from each other.
Oneness presents confusing and conflicting arguments to try and escape the cult label. But it doesn't work.
They are KJVO because they have to use that version to have any hope of defending their beliefs.
If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.
Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.
That is like me coming on this forum and proclaiming I am a oneness proponent, but really meaning "the true Oneness" of pure monotheism wherein YHWH is the ONLY true Elohim/God. Your words have been deceiving. Were you afraid you would not be accepted on this site because you do not profess the mainline Christian understanding of the trinity wherein the Son is not the Father and vice versa?I said: However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.
You are the one that brought up the Athanasian Creed. Prove it is written by Athanasius.Source?
I know that all too well which is why I will not submit to his lies about the trinity, Sabbath, Feast Days, Dietary Laws, etc.Let me point out to you that the devil is a liar.
So, it doesn't matter if we lie to people by deceiving them into believing Athanasius wrote it? It is that kind of thinking that leads Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. The Spirit in me seeks the truth in all things.I would also point out to you that whether Athanasius actually penned the creed or not, it developed from his work: of this I am certain; otherwise history would not have attributed the creed to him. Nevertheless it doesn't matter because Athanasius was only a man, and what matters is that his creed was according to sound doctrine and accepted by the church as the definition of Trinitiarian theology.
I agree. The only reason I used the shield is to show you that you are NOT a trinitarian.The Trinity shield is based on a construct of man; not the Bible.
I said:
New Age translations obviously have a different message than the kjv if they do not prove the same things that the kjv does. It has been trusted for over 400 years. Are you going to try to say that it isn't the word of the Lord? 400 years of people simply didn't have the truth that the "liberated versions" provide to the unregenerated folk? They have a cranto on us because their version is better?
IF?If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?
That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.And here is the KJVO claim it is the only true bible. Which of course means no bible existed its prior to its writing.
This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.The KJV is a bible version with many errors, catholic influence and archaic English that most cannot read accurately.
That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.
I said what the KJVO crowd claims. Not what the 1611 authors said.
It was good at that time but still included a ton of Catholicism, including the apocrypha and easter in example.
You going to argue with that truth?
This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.
I disagree.
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_kjv.htm
The Catholic influence (through Codex Vaticanus) is quite evident in the modern versions. Indeed the RSV is recognized as a Catholic Bible. Revised Standard Version Bible - Catholic Edition | RSV Bible | The Catholic Company
I don't use the RSV.
Catholic Bibles - Shop Official Catholic Bible Editions
What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.
What Bible translation is closest to the original written scriptures?
However, there was a conspiracy to overthrown the Authorized Version and replace it with the Revised Version on the basis of a totally different Greek text. There was gross deception involved is making this radical change. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars and theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries went along with this hoax, and now the modern versions are promoted as being superior, when they are in fact inferior. There are several books written by actual textual scholars which provide the full details (for Christians who prefer the truth to propaganda).
Of course you will not it admit this is all based on your personal feelings, not on any expertise or postable research.
You know I posted information and began this study's back in the seventies because I value facts.
Bible codes? Have not heard that nonsense a long time.
Changed the version or language and you get a different answer.
ah, never heard of that done in any but the original, Hebrew?If all the answers turn out to be faithful, how much more is it an evidence of God?
In light of your stand on the KJV, what do you believe about the "Bible Codes"?That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING if not a misrepresentation. Please read the preface called "The Translators to the Reader". The KJV translators acknowledged the existence of other English translations, but their objective was to make one translation which would be outstanding, and that is what they achieved.
This is just ANTI-KJV PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth. The King James Bible continues to be the most accurate and reliable English translation in spite of all the venom thrown at at. As to *archaic* there are now up-to-date versions of the KJV which have already addressed the issue.
The Catholic influence (through Codex Vaticanus) is quite evident in the modern versions. Indeed the RSV is recognized as a Catholic Bible. Revised Standard Version Bible - Catholic Edition | RSV Bible | The Catholic Company
What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.
However, there was a conspiracy to overthrown the Authorized Version and replace it with the Revised Version on the basis of a totally different Greek text. There was gross deception involved is making this radical change. Unfortunately, the majority of scholars and theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries went along with this hoax, and now the modern versions are promoted as being superior, when they are in fact inferior. There are several books written by actual textual scholars which provide the full details (for Christians who prefer the truth to propaganda).
Please elaborate on this statement. Are you saying, for example, that there are no post 1881 translations that use the Masoretic text?What Christians should understand without the shadow of a doubt is that every modern translation since 1881 represents a corrupted Bible text in Hebrew and Greek. Which means these are counterfeit bibles.
Prove it is written by Athanasius.
That is like me coming on this forum and proclaiming I am a oneness proponent, but really meaning "the true Oneness" of pure monotheism wherein YHWH is the ONLY true Elohim/God. Your words have been deceiving. Were you afraid you would not be accepted on this site because you do not profess the mainline Christian understanding of the trinity wherein the Son is not the Father and vice versa?
It is that kind of thinking that leads Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
You have yet to explain how the book Moby Dick had the answers asked for.
Of course you base all this on the exclusive use of the KJV. Which is rise to the question of which edition and which language to use.
Ever tried to read the 1611 version?
Does this mean you except the apocrypha as Biblical?
When your own look at your thinking, you're standing in quicksand.
My estimation of people who oppose the kjv is that they tend to be hateful towards those who love the kjv and preach from it. Jesus said it would be that way for those who follow Him.
He also said that the way to life is narrow and there are few who find it.
I have read the books on the Bible Codes found in the Hebrew Torah, and it would appear that there is some validity to that idea that world events are hidden in the codes. A mathematician discovered the codes so it is not some hocus-pocus. It is a complex network or words and phrases hidden beneath the text.In light of your stand on the KJV, what do you believe about the "Bible Codes"?
Correct. Kittel's Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis became the *critical text* for modern scholars and modern bible versions, but it corrupted the Masoretic Text. It included emendations based upon the corrupt Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Targums as well as the corruptions of heretics such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. Not to mention *conjectural emendations* (another term for the guesses of unbelieving scholars). This is confirmed in the Preface to the NIV:Please elaborate on this statement. Are you saying, for example, that there are no post 1881 translations that use the Masoretic text?
This coming from a Oneness KJVOnliestThere are definite damnable heresies in the NIV and the NASB (I have not studied further than that); and you are going to have to take my word for it on this; because while I have identified these in the past, some anti-kjv people are so adamant about their rejection of the kjv that they actually begin to promote these heresies just so they can hold their view that their translations are still valid over and above the kjv: and I do not want to mention these heresies since the Lord could hold me accountable for promoting them if I talk about them too much. Truly, I do not want to promote them not only because I fear the accountability but because I have love for people and do not want them to be deceived by those heresies. So I am warning people against the NIV and the NASB and you have the option of calling me someone that is not truthful; or you can believe that this is a warning based on the love of the Lord in my heart. If I don't preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability whenever I post, then you can consider me to be a liar. But really, I do preach sound doctrine to the best of my ability so if my position on the kjv is drawing a line in the sand and certain people do not want to be on my side of it, then that will very likely be on the other side of that line in many issues and that could very will place them in the lake of fire ultimately. And that is not my problem.
Because Scripture does NOT say God became a man. It says God created a man to be the Saviour of the world.True Oneness is that YHWH is the only true God: and Jesus is YHWH. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God became a Man?
Verse 16 must be understood by verses 1-3;In answer to your question: I have to admit that I have been ashamed of the gospel since the truth of it is equated by most to be the theology of a cult. However, I am growing stronger now as I have taken to heart Romans 1:16.
Oy vey!Santa Claus is real.
Of course they don't say the easter bunny is a person. They say it is a bunny that brings them an easter basket of goodies. They lie, which I suppose to you is fun.I don't see any Christian parent telling their children that the easter bunny is any kind of person except a figment of the imagination that can be a source of fun.
This would mean that He became the Son, not that He is the eternal Son.This means that when the Son would be given his throne in the future from the writing of Psalm 45, that it would be his forever into the future. It has no relation to eternity past.
Correct.This would mean that He became the Son, not that He is the eternal Son.
Not so. God sent John as well (John 1:6). Does that mean John was already existing in heaven when YHWH sent him?John 3.16 makes it clear that He Who was given was the Son already.