The Coming Great Apostasy

[Lady Crosstalk]

NKJV?

There appears to be little difference between the NKJV and the KJV.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Not sure how someone who doesn't have faith could work miracles of faith.

Also, the idea of "betrayal" by definition incorporates the idea of "turning against".

With us, it's possible for one who is an enemy from the start to "betray" another by pretended friendship, but with Jesus Who knew the hearts of men, the only way Judas' actions could ever be characterized as "betrayal" is if Judas was at one time His genuine friend.

Do we know that Judas did work miracles of faith? There is nothing in the NT text that says that. Jesus, at one point, accuses His disciples of having faith smaller than a mustard seed when they cannot cast an evil spirit out of a boy. A betrayal does not necessarily involve "turning against" someone. We can betray our spouse with the casting of lustful eyes on another--but that does not mean that we are ready to divorce that spouse (a real turning against). Someone could merely PRETEND to be a friend to someone and then betray that "friend" as you have pointed out. I think John 6:64 is likely the final word on it. It frankly says that Jesus knew who did not believe and who would betray Him.

 

[Enoch111]

There appears to be little difference between the NKJV and the KJV.

The NKJV was influenced by the critics to some degree, and cannot really be trusted. For detailed analyses, do an Internet search.

The proliferation of modern bible perversions is simply another aspect of the Great Apostasy. The constant revisions of these bibles reflects what Paul said about ever learning and never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The NKJV was influenced by the critics to some degree, and cannot really be trusted. For detailed analyses, do an Internet search.

The proliferation of modern bible perversions is simply another aspect of the Great Apostasy. The constant revisions of these bibles reflects what Paul said about ever learning and never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

But it is still possible, through the Bible's repetition of thoughts, to discern the real meaning of Scripture. That is the genius of God. The distortion of His word has been a given since Eve distorted what God said, when she exaggerated that God had said they weren't "even allowed to touch" the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We can't wholly trust any human but God Himself is totally worthy of our trust.

 

[Enoch111]

But it is still possible, through the Bible's repetition of thoughts, to discern the real meaning of Scripture.

Of course. But if you had a bowl of fruit which had both rotten and wholesome fruit, why would you choose the rotten over the wholesome?

 

[Earburner]

Of course. But if you had a bowl of fruit which had both rotten and wholesome fruit, why would you choose the rotten over the wholesome?

I say, choose a respectable version that is comfortable to you and STAY with that!!
I for one, got into too much of the many versions, and finally got disgusted with it all, and went back to the KJV. I have been fine ever since. When you seek God with your whole being, the Holy Spirit in you, will not allow you to get lost.

 

[Enoch111]

I say, choose a respectable version that is comfortable to you and STAY with that!!

The Bible version issue would have been a NON-ISSUE if Westcott & Hort (and their cronies) had simply been honest and done their jobs with Christian integrity. They were unmasked and exposed in The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, as well as many other books and publications.

What is disappointing and amazing is that even after their hoax was exposed, later translators and scholars refused to give up their lies, and introduced their errors into all the modern versions.

 

[Phoneman777]

You gotta imo contemplate that Judas likely loved Jesus, and is portrayed as condemned for his actions? His confession is recorded after all? Might be beneficial to consider that Judas was maybe trying to put Jesus in a position in order to in his mind force Him to accept the crown imo, which had already been attempted?

Some have said that Judas loved Jesus but loved mammon more and thought by putting Jesus in a compromised position, His and Israel's presumed ascension to greatness would have been hastened. In the end, he demonstrated himself as one who had resisted the grace of Christ to the point that he'd gone to far and ruined himself beyond redemption.

 

[Copperhead]

The proliferation of so many English translations does little but to confuse the majority of people, especially those new in the faith. While I can deal with the proliferation to some extent, it really has caused me to go the other direction to some degree. My preference has migrated to the 1599 Geneva Bible, though I will still occasionally compare verses with NKJV, ISV etc.

And when I took a look at the intrigue behind how the Geneva and later KJ versions came about, the motivation to move to the Geneva won out. The political factors of England really messed things up.

The big problem is that many of the newer translations do an excellent job in many areas, but some of the faulty translation still bleeds thru. Some of the translations have done very little to actually improve an understanding of the nuances and meaning of the original texts. I truly feel sorry for new believers facing all this coming at them, especially since many churches seem to place a salvation issue regarding translations. Or at best, they will ridicule others for not using the version du jour they use. It has become just another food fight among the brethren.

And given that, it sure can seem like it is yet another sign of things going south and the end rapidly approaching.

 

[Earburner]

The Bible version issue would have been a NON-ISSUE if Westcott & Hort (and their cronies) had simply been honest and done their jobs with Christian integrity. They were unmasked and exposed in The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, as well as many other books and publications.

What is disappointing and amazing is that even after their hoax was exposed, later translators and scholars refused to give up their lies, and introduced their errors into all the modern versions.

I agree!
It's so overwhelming, that Christians are in a state of capitulation over the manipulation. Its hard for anyone to agree on topics in a Bible study.

 

[Earburner]

No, the "man of sin, the son of perdition" is specifically a system that would be held down by a specific restraining power (Pagan Rome), arise at a specific time (after Pagan Rome was taken out of the way), and sit down in the temple of God (exalt its authority over the church), show himself that he is God (by falsely claiming to "take the place of Christ" and sit as "Jesus Christ, hidden under the veil of flesh", etc.), and war against God and His saints until the time of Christ's return.

No single dude could have arisen way back after the fall of Pagan Rome and continued all the way down to the Judgment...but papal Rome has fulfilled every single identifying mark of this Antichrist system, as the Reformers correctly reasoned.

You are speaking "religious" persuasion.
An interpretation that is fabricated by the analytical, fleshly minds of the "scholarly learned" .

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

You are speaking "religious" persuasion.
An interpretation that is fabricated by the analytical, fleshly minds of the "scholarly learned" .

Preterism (the notion that all the prophesied events of catastrophe had already taken place by 70 A.D.). It was a creation of the Jesuits, fabricated to take the heat off the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the Protestant Reformers were convinced that the last Pope would be the Antichrist at some future point.

From Wikipedia: "...Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy—Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation..."

 

[brakelite]

You gotta imo contemplate that Judas likely loved Jesus, and is portrayed as condemned for his actions? His confession is recorded after all? Might be beneficial to consider that Judas was maybe trying to put Jesus in a position in order to in his mind force Him to accept the crown imo, which had already been attempted?

I think you are correct is that conclusion, however, the very fact that Judas was trying to implement this revealed his selfish motives...he, like several of the other disciples, wanted a "Place" in the kingdom, as did the Pharisees and everyone else who longed for Messiah to rout the Romans and establish Israel as an independent empire. Judas may not have been the only one (zealots eg) who thought this way, but was the only one who from a position of privilege and light, acted on those selfish impulses. "Self" was not dead. A lesson for us today. So many of us claim to have faith and a relationship with Christ, but if we are living for self, we are no better off than Judas.

 

[Earburner]

Speci

Preterism (the notion that all the prophesied events of catastrophe had already taken place by 70 A.D.). It was a creation of the Jesuits, fabricated to take the heat off the RCC.

From Wikipedia: "...Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy—Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation..."

No, wrong approach! You are not hearing what I am saying. Maybe by reading Isa. 55:8-9 and John 16:13 it will help.

 

[brakelite]

OK. But how about this:
Antiochus, as a king, sought to achieve the height of exceeding (beyond) great, through his campaigns against his enemies. It's not that he reached his goal, but rather he attempted to do so.

Let me in detail give my reasons why I believe Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7.
a. Antiochus does not rise after 10 kings. He was the 8th king in the Syrian line of Seleucid kings. Besides, the prophecy calls for 10 kingdoms to exist contemporaneously, not successively.
b. Antiochus belonged to the 3rd empire (Greece) in actual historical sequence from Daniel’s time.
c. He was not ‘diverse’ from any other king.
d. He did not ‘pluck up’ 3 other kings.
e. He was not ‘stouter’ than his fellows. His father was known as Antiochus the Great, not Epiphanes.
f. He did not prevail until the end of time, the judgment.
g. The kingdom following was Rome, not the kingdom of the saints.

Reasons why Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 8.
a. Antiochus was not a horn in his own right. He was of the Seleucid line therefore was a part of one of the four.
b. He did not wax exceeding great. In fact his father was greater, but neither was as great as even Babylon or Media Persia, certainly no greater than Alexander. Yet the prophecy demands that the little horn be greater than any empire before it.
c. He does not fit the time periods. According to Maccabees 1:54,59, and 4:52 Antiochus suppressed the sacrifices exactly 3 years. This fits neither the 1260 days , (times time and half a time,) nor the 2300 days (evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14). These figures do not compliment one another NOR do they meet the reign of Antiochus.
d. The 2300 days is prophetic. Using the day/year principle established elsewhere as being the standard and norm for interpreting prophetic time periods, it is a literal 2300 years.

Therefore,
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

can only refer to the empire of Rome

 

[Nancy]

I once had a conversation with a man who called himself a "Christian atheist". He said he liked Jesus' teachings and thought they were important to a well-ordered society. But, when I asked, "Does that mean that you don't believe in Jesus but you like Him?" He paused for a moment and said, "I have not been given the gift of faith but I think he was a brilliant and good man--probably the best man ever." I found the man's responses incredibly sad.

Oh yes that is sad indeed. I wonder if he was told that by a believer in limited atonement? Maybe he had doubts and believed that he was not included in the Atonement. Hmm.

 

[Earburner]

Let me in detail give my reasons why I believe Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7.
a. Antiochus does not rise after 10 kings. He was the 8th king in the Syrian line of Seleucid kings. Besides, the prophecy calls for 10 kingdoms to exist contemporaneously, not successively.
b. Antiochus belonged to the 3rd empire (Greece) in actual historical sequence from Daniel’s time.
c. He was not ‘diverse’ from any other king.
d. He did not ‘pluck up’ 3 other kings.
e. He was not ‘stouter’ than his fellows. His father was known as Antiochus the Great, not Epiphanes.
f. He did not prevail until the end of time, the judgment.
g. The kingdom following was Rome, not the kingdom of the saints.

Reasons why Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 8.
a. Antiochus was not a horn in his own right. He was of the Seleucid line therefore was a part of one of the four.
b. He did not wax exceeding great. In fact his father was greater, but neither was as great as even Babylon or Media Persia, certainly no greater than Alexander. Yet the prophecy demands that the little horn be greater than any empire before it.
c. He does not fit the time periods. According to Maccabees 1:54,59, and 4:52 Antiochus suppressed the sacrifices exactly 3 years. This fits neither the 1260 days , (times time and half a time,) nor the 2300 days (evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14). These figures do not compliment one another NOR do they meet the reign of Antiochus.
d. The 2300 days is prophetic. Using the day/year principle established elsewhere as being the standard and norm for interpreting prophetic time periods, it is a literal 2300 years.

Therefore,
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

can only refer to the empire of Rome

Yes, your line of thinking is typical of the "religious" method of analytical study, by your fleshly mind.
.
You made only one factual statement that proves that Antiochus Epiphanes was THE "little horn" of Daniel, and that there was no future "little horn" to come.
Brakelight wrote:
a. Antiochus does not rise after 10 kings. He was the 8th king in the Syrian line of Seleucid kings. Besides, the prophecy calls for 10 kingdoms to exist contemporaneously, not successively.
b. Antiochus belonged to the 3rd empire (Greece) in actual historical sequence from Daniel’s time.
.
The evidence of that truth you stated, is found in
Dan.7[8] I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
.
Questions:
Where at any time is it stated that the rising "little horn" was OF THE 10 horns?
.
Is it not true, that when Antiochus Epiphanes was rising to power, in the latter time of the 3rd Beast (Grecian Empire), the 4th beast (Roman Empire) was in it's beginning stages of formation?

IOWS, while the 4th beast with 10 horns was rising, so also was the "little horn" of the 3rd beast rising among them.
Since that another "little horn" came up among them (10 horns), we should not assume that he (the little horn) was of them.
The fact of history proves that Antiochus Epiphanes was NOT OF THEM.

 

[Earburner]

If you need more clarity, you must come to terms with the fact that Daniel is not the authority, but rather the angel Gabriel is, who interpreted Daniel's visions. Therefore, read the angel's interpretations separately from Daniel's writing of his visions.
By doing that, you will not be confused, as ALL the churches are. Once you have done that, then use what Daniel wrote of his visions, but ONLY as a reference.

 

[Phoneman777]

I hear your point, and it sounds solid, but I am having an issue with the word "waxed".
Some how, I don't think we are interpreting it correctly within the context.
The Strong's #1980 interprets that word in Dan. 8:9 in numerous ways, so it lends itself to other verses for that understanding, and also the English definition.
From what I perceive, the word "waxed" is descriptive of how AE "behaved/walked" in his own self/mind, as to how he wished to be seen/known of in the world, aka having a grandiose personality.
Though his vision of himself was to exceed [go beyond being] great, history proves that he was infamous for his atrocities, of which brings no honor or fame to his desired end.
In fact, in 1 Maccabees, AE on his death loathed himself for all that he had done.

You are speaking "religious" persuasion.
An interpretation that is fabricated by the analytical, fleshly minds of the "scholarly learned" .

The difference between you and I is that while I'm well acquainted with your Jesuit Futurism ideas and at one time believed them, you are not in the slightest acquainted with Protestant Historicism, and that is why you continue to believe as you do, which is fine by me. But I would encourage you to study about why just about every single Protestant that was alive on Earth from between the 16th century to the 19th century believed what I'm presenting and how it came to be that in just a little over 100 years, the lies of Jesuit Futurism have taken hold of Protestantism.

 

[Earburner]

The difference between you and I is that while I'm well acquainted with your Jesuit Futurism ideas and at one time believed them, you are not in the slightest acquainted with Protestant Historicism, and that is why you continue to believe as you do, which is fine by me. But I would encourage you to study about why just about every single Protestant that was alive on Earth from between the 16th century to the 19th century believed what I'm presenting and how it came to be that in just a little over 100 years, the lies of Jesuit Futurism have taken hold of Protestantism.

Nope!
How about some factual evidence about how Antiochus Epiphanes fell short of his desire to exceed being great?
1 Mac. 6[8] Now when the king heard these words, he was astonished and sore moved: whereupon he laid him down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not befallen him as he looked for.